Re: [WISPA] MicroTik HWMPplus mesh?

2010-06-20 Thread Clint Ricker
Inline

On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote:
 At 6/20/2010 12:32 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
You know your stuff in-side out, hands down there is no argument about
that :)

 Thanks. :-)

Getting back to your original quest... You are going to find the following:-

The non-licensed wireless world is not as mature as the wire line
world... think of today's wire less world being what the wire line world
used to be about 10 -15 years back. Most of what you are citing from the
Ethernet World, only became available and in common use in the last 10
years or so... before that, everyone was happy doing conversions from
TDM ...(speaking loosely).

In the wireless world of today, especially what folks here deal with,
have some set outer boundaries ... a few of these are things like...
performance, based on standard(s) , LOW COST, small in power
consumption, etc etc...

 It is different... in particular, the WISP community knocks a few
 zeroes off of the allowable costs.  I like that...  you can put up a
 node for what your basic Bell would pay for a jumper cable or the
 like.  This is the only way to make service affordable in small
 clusters, like 50/node.  The FCC-blessed approach, in contrast, is
 to have a rural ILEC spend $20k+ per subscriber to pull glass or
 hybrid fiber-copper to the neighborhood, and charge the rest of the
 country for it via the USF.  In this case we're in the outskirts of
 an ATT exchange, so there's no USF for them, and thus no service
 beyond dial tone.

 In the wireline world, we look at Vyatta as this super-low-cost
 alternative to that company that rhymes with Crisco.  Here, Vyatta is
 that high-end alternative to a Latvian import.  Those other guys, the
 ones that basically control the IETF, don't play.  I like that too...


My opinion is that the major work that is done on routing / network
hardware by the companies with deep pockets is also done for companies
with deep pockets.  So, what you get is stuff designed to solve
national problems, not small town needs Internet, and then, if
needed, is just scaled down--with varying degrees of success.  It's
not just a matter of wireless running 10 years behind
wireline--wireless really doesn't have anyone with deep pockets
addressing these sorts of issues.  Large-scale mesh from hard-core
networking companies doesn't exist: the major service providers that
do wireless pretty much all universally backhaul over wireline and
avoid these issues.  Unless the trajectory changes, I'd say that these
issues aren't on a path to ever being solved, let alone inside of 10
years ;).  So, it's probably a matter of roll your own or push back on
the wireless vendors (Ubiquiti, Mikrotek), although I'm sure that they
run on ridiculously thin margins and would need enough of a coalition
to convince them that they could see any ROI by bringing this to
maturity; it's also complicated by the fact that a lot of the vendors
core expertise is RF, not IP.

For what it's worth Fred, I somewhat disagreed with your assertion of
IP is just another layer two protocol that made in a previous post.
In the end, the power of IP is in its hierarchical nature which lets
you summarize, which is critical to the amount of processing that it
takes to process network decisions on a network of non-trivial size.
That said, as long as you route, not bridge customers onto your mesh
network, then the mesh network itself will remain small enough that
layer two is perfectly reasonable.  If you do HMWPplus, then I'd
assume that you'd at some point need to scale by splitting mesh into
multiple meshes; OLSRD is probably going to handle a large number of
nodes more gracefully.  However, as has been pointed out, having
link-quality information as part of the routing decision is critical
and, in the end, it is a lot more elegant to put that on layer two
than on layer 3 like OLSRD does.

You nailed a fundamental problem which is the lack of any sort of
carrier / metro Ethernet style setup.  For most traditional wireline
vendors in this space, there are two basic components to making this
work--classes of services / QOS (router side) and then the
provisioning system which actually knows what's provisioned and what
the remaining capacity on various spans is.   The missing piece in
this puzzle for wireless is the provisioning system, although the
algorithms for doing route/bandwidth capacity calculations in a
many-to-many mesh architecture are non-trivial to develop, to say the
least.  If you limited yourself to a ring-architecture, it would be
much more doable.

...
BTW, Aaron Kaplan was trying to say, in not too many words.. that most
of the mesh networks which have utilized the traditional Wireline
protocols, (weather they are single frequency or not) have the usual
problem .(most wireline protocols are not concerned with link
quality...), and this is the reason why they developed the OSLR ...
which takes link quality into account as well when making 

Re: [WISPA] Urgently need 2 Zx SFP's

2010-05-26 Thread Clint Ricker
Some switches don't work well with copper SFPs because they draw more power.

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Brad Belton b...@belwave.com wrote:
 To be a bit more specific, we haven't had any issues with our generic fiber
 SX, LX and ZX SFPs, but the copper GigE SFPs do not seem to work.  It's rare
 we use a copper SFP, but thought I'd clarify further.

 Best,


 Brad


 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
 Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 3:09 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Urgently need 2 Zx SFP's


 Brad:
 That is interesting... you should mention Dell 6248's... these are the
 exact units that I am not having luck with the generic SFP's...

 Gino:  Not to step on WISPA Vendor Member's toes.. but these folks may
 be able to ship ...
 http://www.fo4all.com/index.html

 Regards

 Faisal Imtiaz
 Snappy Internet  Telecom
 7266 SW 48 Street
 Miami, Fl 33155
 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net


 On 5/25/2010 3:53 PM, Brad Belton wrote:
 Our Dell 6248s seem to be ok with generic SFPs.  I guess YMMV and
 exactly
 what generic SFP you source.

 BTW Gino, I checked our source and he's out of ZX right now.

 Best,


 Brad


 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
 Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 2:48 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Urgently need 2 Zx SFP's

 I guess what Dennis is asking For What Equipment you want these SFP..

 Even though they are supposed to be a 'Standard'...but they tend not to
 'inter-operate'.


 e.g.  Dell Switches do no like generic SFP's.

 Faisal Imtiaz
 Snappy Internet   Telecom
 7266 SW 48 Street
 Miami, Fl 33155
 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net


 On 5/25/2010 3:39 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:

 1000 base ZX, LC connectors

 Note, ZX spec is 70km

 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 787.273.4143

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Dennis Burgess
 Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 3:36 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Urgently need 2 Zx SFP's

 We stock SFPs.  Specifics?

 ---
 Dennis Burgess, CCNA, Mikrotik Certified Trainer, MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE,
 MTCTCE, MTCUME
 Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik   WISP Support Services
 Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
 LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of Learn RouterOS


 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Gino Villarini
 Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 2:28 PM
 To: WISPA General List; motor...@afmug.com
 Subject: [WISPA] Urgently need 2 Zx SFP's

 Anyone can ship them today?



 Gino A. Villarini

 g...@aeronetpr.com

 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.

 787.273.4143





 
 
 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/





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

 
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 

Re: [WISPA] T1 pci card

2009-11-18 Thread Clint Ricker
In a word: don't.

T1s are incredibly dependent upon timing, and due to technical issues, PCs
don't really do this well.  They generally work but are typically plagued by
lockups / higher error rates than traditional TDM hardware.



On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Jason Wallace supp...@azii.net wrote:

 Anyone know where (if?) I can get a PCI card to connect to a T1 for less
 than the $400 or so I have found on my own?

 I'd like to Integrate some of my equipment and eliminate a cisco 2610
 that's really doing nothing but converting my T1 to an ethernet port.

 It's no worth $400 to do this however...

 Jason



 
 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] 8 Fiber Port Managed Switch

2009-11-17 Thread Clint Ricker
Unless space is a major issue, it is usually much more economical to get a
copper managed switch and use media converters to go from copper to fiber.

-Clint Ricker

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:28 PM, can...@believewireless.net 
p...@believewireless.net wrote:

 Anyone know of an affordable 8 port managed switch that has 8 fiber ports?



 
 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] 8 Fiber Port Managed Switch

2009-11-17 Thread Clint Ricker
Also, if this is for use for customers, a side benefit is that the the media
converter on the CPE end can be used as a good demarc point from which you
can do some basic monitoring.  This is a fairly common practice for
companies doing metro Ethernet offerings.

-Clint Ricker


On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Clint Ricker cric...@kentnis.com wrote:

 Unless space is a major issue, it is usually much more economical to get a
 copper managed switch and use media converters to go from copper to fiber.

 -Clint Ricker


 On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:28 PM, can...@believewireless.net 
 p...@believewireless.net wrote:

 Anyone know of an affordable 8 port managed switch that has 8 fiber ports?



 
 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] IPTV -- Anyone doing it?

2009-11-11 Thread Clint Ricker
You can roll your own middleware until you have to deal with encryption.
Most IPTV settop boxes are provisioned via bootp to push out the OS and the
channel maps, so it is a trivial matter to provision a STB on your own.
Encryption, however, complicates matters a lot and, as Jayson mentioned,
even if you could roll your own, it doesn't matter the networks require
specific platform and aren't going to trust home-grown solutions.







On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 2:20 PM, jree...@18-30chat.net jree...@18-30chat.net
 wrote:

 Jayson Baker wrote:
  Echostar's IPTV product is different from DISH Network's
  wholesale/resellable service.  DISH cannot cross ROW's.  Echo IPTV can,
 it
  was designed to do just that.
 
  Middleware was something I wasn't too heavily involved in, to be honest
 with
  you.  But I do know your IPTV STB won't run without it.  Take a look at
  Minerva - great middleware.  You must use an approved middleware to get
  hooked up with the big boys like Disney -- they want to ensure that only
  people you sell their picture to are able to get it (i.e. encrypted, with
 a
  middleware controlling encryption and access).  etc. etc. etc.

 Bah! Now see that kills the Roku's and other STB's like them. I wonder how
 they
 deal with netflix/hulu on xbox/ps3

 
  On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:56 AM, jree...@18-30chat.net 
  jree...@18-30chat.net wrote:
 
  Jayson Baker wrote:
  Building the headend isn't that difficult, you're right.
 
  Ours was actually pretty simple.  We used multi-channel satellite
  receivers;
  each tuned 32 channels I think.  It had an ASI output.
  Thats more channels then I am even really looking to start will, unless
 I
  can
  find a 'prepackaged' setup with more.
 
  We'd take the ASI stream, and run it into an ASI-input PCI card.  Each
  card
  took 4 ASI streams, and was about $1000 each.
 
  Linux software on the server pulled each channel out of the ASI and
  converted it to MPEG 4.  Cheap, easy, simple.
 
  They'd put out a multicast stream, which our network took and pushed
 out
  the
  fiber ring.  We even had it going down some wireless links, so I could
  get
  it at my house 20 miles away.
 
  The money in the headend comes in when you by the middleware -- this
 you
  cannot just roll your own  Middleware handles billing,
 authentication,
  licenses, guide, etc.
  I must be missing something. It seams to me that billing and
 authentication
  are
  simple and can be handled by the system that I pretty much have in place
  now. I
  am not sure what licenses such software would need to deal with. A guide
 is
  pretty easy too, unless there is some form of 'Intellectual Property' BS
  going
  on with rolling your own guide capabilities.
 
 
  Making deals with companies to rebroadcast their channels is going to
 be
  another major hurdle.  Unless you are big (i.e. have $$$) don't think
  you'll
  be carrying anything in the Disney/ESPN/ABC family.  And forget about
  HBO.
  You'll need a fancy (i.e. $$$) lawyer who has been down this road
 before
  to
  negotiate these deals.  When we set ours up, we hired a lawyer away
 from
  Comcast.  After everything was in place, he went on to other things.
  Yea thats what I figured.
 
  Echostar has an IPTV solution, you may want to look into that.  AFAIK,
  you
  pay them for everything, and they handle it all.  Their feed, their
  headend,
  their encoders, their middleware, their STB's.  One nice thing about
 that
  is
  it's the same DISH Network interface a lot of satellite users are
 already
  used to.
  What I have looked into with them is they have a may not cross public
  right of
  way clause making is useless for anything except MDU's, or is that only
  with
  dish network label setups? Will check it out.
 
 
 
  On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:16 AM, jree...@18-30chat.net 
  jree...@18-30chat.net
  wrote:
  Thats the problem, if I had 50K sitting around for gear, I would not
 be
  putting
  it into TV (well, maybe I would be, but more BW, more towers, faster
  clients,
  etc come to mind sooner).
 
  I can build a head end for far far less then that, If I stuck to the
  free
  channels or made my won deals with each channel. There are 1000's
 (well,
  close)
  of free to air channels out there. Some even give explicit permission
 to
  rebroadcast the channel, as long as you notify them etc. I was hoping
 to
  find a
  place that would let me purchase channels X, Y, and Z, etc. The locals
  are
  easy
  enough to deal with. So, Looks like I will need to do my own head end,
  no
  biggie
  over all. Who do I talk to about licensing? I knwo some channels are
  direct,
  some are not. Is there a list? And, can a person who already has a
  license
  sub-license to me? Like MDU style? I know Charter does that, if you
 have
  enough
  people (IE I suspect enough money) If I could sublet off of a existing
  licensee
  and do my own IP transport, that would work out pretty well. Anyone
 have
  a
  license contract they can share? (most 

Re: [WISPA] IPTV -- Anyone doing it?

2009-11-11 Thread Clint Ricker
Most of the processing stuff can be done on Linux with VLC and/or FFMpeg
(for IP to ASI conversion, transcoding/transrating, etc...)

-Clint Ricker


On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Blake Covarrubias bl...@beamspeed.comwrote:

 We're operate a small cable TV company in a minor section of our service
 area and carry about 55 channels which includes most of the major networks.

 We're interested in deploying IPTV. What middleware software would you
 recommend? You mentioned you used Linux in your headend environment. Can you
 elaborate on that setup, such as the software you were using to convert the
 channels to IP Multicast, set-top boxes being used, software providing
 channel guides, etc etc?

 Thanks.

 --
 Blake Covarrubias

 On Nov 9, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Jayson Baker wrote:

  Building the headend isn't that difficult, you're right.
 
  Ours was actually pretty simple.  We used multi-channel satellite
 receivers;
  each tuned 32 channels I think.  It had an ASI output.
 
  We'd take the ASI stream, and run it into an ASI-input PCI card.  Each
 card
  took 4 ASI streams, and was about $1000 each.
 
  Linux software on the server pulled each channel out of the ASI and
  converted it to MPEG 4.  Cheap, easy, simple.
 
  They'd put out a multicast stream, which our network took and pushed out
 the
  fiber ring.  We even had it going down some wireless links, so I could
 get
  it at my house 20 miles away.
 
  The money in the headend comes in when you by the middleware -- this you
  cannot just roll your own  Middleware handles billing, authentication,
  licenses, guide, etc.
 
 
  Making deals with companies to rebroadcast their channels is going to be
  another major hurdle.  Unless you are big (i.e. have $$$) don't think
 you'll
  be carrying anything in the Disney/ESPN/ABC family.  And forget about
 HBO.
  You'll need a fancy (i.e. $$$) lawyer who has been down this road before
 to
  negotiate these deals.  When we set ours up, we hired a lawyer away from
  Comcast.  After everything was in place, he went on to other things.
 
 
  Echostar has an IPTV solution, you may want to look into that.  AFAIK,
 you
  pay them for everything, and they handle it all.  Their feed, their
 headend,
  their encoders, their middleware, their STB's.  One nice thing about that
 is
  it's the same DISH Network interface a lot of satellite users are already
  used to.
 
 
  On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:16 AM, jree...@18-30chat.net 
 jree...@18-30chat.net
  wrote:
 
  Thats the problem, if I had 50K sitting around for gear, I would not be
  putting
  it into TV (well, maybe I would be, but more BW, more towers, faster
  clients,
  etc come to mind sooner).
 
  I can build a head end for far far less then that, If I stuck to the
 free
  channels or made my won deals with each channel. There are 1000's (well,
  close)
  of free to air channels out there. Some even give explicit permission to
  rebroadcast the channel, as long as you notify them etc. I was hoping to
  find a
  place that would let me purchase channels X, Y, and Z, etc. The locals
 are
  easy
  enough to deal with. So, Looks like I will need to do my own head end,
 no
  biggie
  over all. Who do I talk to about licensing? I knwo some channels are
  direct,
  some are not. Is there a list? And, can a person who already has a
 license
  sub-license to me? Like MDU style? I know Charter does that, if you have
  enough
  people (IE I suspect enough money) If I could sublet off of a existing
  licensee
  and do my own IP transport, that would work out pretty well. Anyone have
 a
  license contract they can share? (most seam to have some NDA stuffs)
 
  can...@believewireless.net wrote:
  When we looked into Avail Media, it was a $500,000 investment to start
  if I remember correctly.  (Headend, set top boxes, etc.)
 
  On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Jayson Baker jay...@spectrasurf.com
  wrote:
  Have a look at Avail Media.  We used them in the past for an FTTH
  project I
  was involved in.
  They will provide you the headend, and satellite feeds from their
  super-headend (aggregator).
  They work with the networks and it makes licensing and such a little
  easier.
 
  On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 7:44 AM, jree...@18-30chat.net 
  jree...@18-30chat.net
  wrote:
  I have been looking at some IPTV options and basically, there does
 not
  seam
  to
  be a whole lot of options. I can A) build my own IP headend B) nada .
  I
  can not
  find a single IPTV provider that truly caters to the resident, soho,
  etc.
  There
  is one that does so for huge cable op's but thats not where I am at,
  yet =)
 
  I can build my own head end no problem. Licensing is the primary
 issues
  there. I
  am guessing that is what is stopping the explosion of retail IPTV and
  instead
  pushing the more a la carte IP video streamers like NetFlix, HuLu, et
  al.
 
  So, what options exist for IPTV ?
 
 
 
 
 
 
  WISPA

Re: [WISPA] IPTV -- Anyone doing it?

2009-11-11 Thread Clint Ricker
If you're skeptical about putting $50k into IPTV, you probably need to be
looking elsewhere.  Even rolling your own, it can easily run you more than
that. Satellite receivers are expensive.  ASI to IP conversion is
expensive.  The likely upgrades to your network to handle the increased load
is expensive.

Then there's the problem that wireless gear and IPTV don't mix very well.
Even all the matters of jitter / QOS aside that require some effort to get
VoIP over wireless working well, most APs deployed today just don't have the
throughput.  You're basically talking about sustaining a 2Mbps stream (for
mpeg4 SD stream) or, if you try to do HD, 10Mbps for each STB downstream of
your access point.  Most of the wireless gear in the market breaks down very
quickly under that sort of load.

On the other hand, if you're talking MDUs, wireless can handle the backhaul
to a wired network without an issue.

-Clint


On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 11:16 AM, jree...@18-30chat.net 
jree...@18-30chat.net wrote:

 Thats the problem, if I had 50K sitting around for gear, I would not be
 putting
 it into TV (well, maybe I would be, but more BW, more towers, faster
 clients,
 etc come to mind sooner).

 I can build a head end for far far less then that, If I stuck to the free
 channels or made my won deals with each channel. There are 1000's (well,
 close)
 of free to air channels out there. Some even give explicit permission to
 rebroadcast the channel, as long as you notify them etc. I was hoping to
 find a
 place that would let me purchase channels X, Y, and Z, etc. The locals are
 easy
 enough to deal with. So, Looks like I will need to do my own head end, no
 biggie
 over all. Who do I talk to about licensing? I knwo some channels are
 direct,
 some are not. Is there a list? And, can a person who already has a license
 sub-license to me? Like MDU style? I know Charter does that, if you have
 enough
 people (IE I suspect enough money) If I could sublet off of a existing
 licensee
 and do my own IP transport, that would work out pretty well. Anyone have a
 license contract they can share? (most seam to have some NDA stuffs)

 can...@believewireless.net wrote:
  When we looked into Avail Media, it was a $500,000 investment to start
  if I remember correctly.  (Headend, set top boxes, etc.)
 
  On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Jayson Baker jay...@spectrasurf.com
 wrote:
  Have a look at Avail Media.  We used them in the past for an FTTH
 project I
  was involved in.
  They will provide you the headend, and satellite feeds from their
  super-headend (aggregator).
  They work with the networks and it makes licensing and such a little
 easier.
 
  On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 7:44 AM, jree...@18-30chat.net 
 jree...@18-30chat.net
  wrote:
  I have been looking at some IPTV options and basically, there does not
 seam
  to
  be a whole lot of options. I can A) build my own IP headend B) nada .
  I
  can not
  find a single IPTV provider that truly caters to the resident, soho,
 etc.
  There
  is one that does so for huge cable op's but thats not where I am at,
 yet =)
 
  I can build my own head end no problem. Licensing is the primary issues
  there. I
  am guessing that is what is stopping the explosion of retail IPTV and
  instead
  pushing the more a la carte IP video streamers like NetFlix, HuLu, et
 al.
 
  So, what options exist for IPTV ?
 
 
 
 
 
  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: 

Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement

2009-11-10 Thread Clint Ricker
CALEA does require that you be able to identify subscribers by IP address
and, as necessary take captures.  So, once this data is collected for CALEA
compliance purposes (as is mandatory), then it can be used in other legal
proceedings.

However, I don't see how a service provider has to provide CALEA information
unless requested by a law enforcement agency, which would require a criminal
prosecution (to be accessed by the CALEA provisions which circumvent some of
the normal due process for these requests) or a subpoena in an ongoing
lawsuit.

Still, all that said, I find it a complete breach of trust for a service
provider to forward that information onto a third party outside of a
subpoena or a CALEA request.  This is true in cases of copyright
enforcement, which is usually more of a civil dispute between two parties
than a criminal matter.  This breach of privacy could also be abused in
other ways: it's not hard to imagine a spoofed copyright violation notice
being sent by a child predator or an offended chatroom user who fishes for
identification information for purposes of revenge or abuse.

-Clint

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net wrote:

 This actually leads to another question:
  Based on Federal CALEA requirements, aren't we (the service provider)
 supposed to keep our detail records of subscibers and usage logs

 .We keep logs by using a centralied Syslog server, where we log access,
 based on time stamp records, we can go back and see who was using what IP
 address at what point in time...




 Faisal Imtiaz
 Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net
 Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232
 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Adam Goodman
 Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:01 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement

 Sounds like a lot of work. I think the question should be - Is it really
 your (our) job to protect those crappies revenue stream?


 On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jerry Richardson
 jrichard...@aircloud.com wrote:
  So if you are running a NAT/DHCP network, how would you find the
 offending
 customer? We are running static/public so we don't run into this.
 
  I think the simplest way is to require the studio to provide the IP for
 the server delivering copyrighted information.
 
  The ISP has to be tracking CPE MACs.
 
  Use MT's torch or Wireshark to look at connections across the network to
 find the BT server IP. Match the connection to the MAC and there you go.
 
  Maybe there is an easier way.
 
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
  On Behalf Of Nick Olsen
  Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:11 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
 
  Really to cover yourself you would need to know what customer it came
  from, When NAT'ing that's hard to do. So yeah, I would agree you the
  ISP could become the sole person responsible for that unless you can
  point fingers at a customer.
 
  Nick Olsen
  Brevard Wireless
  (321) 205-1100 x106
 
 
  
 
  From: os10ru...@gmail.com os10ru...@gmail.com
  Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:03 AM
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
 
  What are you guys doing who have some/all of your network nat'ed?
  Seems like then more of the burden might fall on you.
 
  GReg
 
  On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Adam Goodman wrote:
 
  To me the question is how much work should I invest in order to
  protect their copyright interest. It makes sense to me that since
  they have no way of knowing the identity of the customer and all they
  really have is an ip address. That the ISP would have to connect the
  copyright owner to the customer. Billing them for the research work
  sounds like good idea to me. That way I am not preventing them from
  contacting the perpetrating party, and I also get paid for my time.
 
  -Adam
 
 
 
  On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Robert West
  robert.w...@just-micro.com
  wrote:
  I agree.  I'm not the sheriff, I'm just the messenger boy.  I pass
  it
  along
  and forget it.  Not my job.
 
  Bob-
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
  On Behalf Of Chuck Hogg
  Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:41 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] DMCA - copyright infringement
 
  Notify customer, give a warning, make not on account, disregard
  studio letter.  Wait for subpoena before giving the studios any
 information.
 
  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 Adam Goodman
  Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:12 PM
  

Re: [WISPA] Broadband Internet Access Deemed a Legal Right

2009-10-16 Thread Clint Ricker
I know this is an unpopular stance to take on this list, but what the
hey--so are most of my postings.

I actually would say this makes economic sense.  If we think it is
worthwhile to spend thousands of dollars per child per year to provide them
an education (yeah, blatant socialism, I know), then a few hundred dollars a
year, if that, per household for Internet is a bargain.

 -Clint Ricker




On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Jayson Baker jay...@spectrasurf.comwrote:

 My thoughts exactly.  A human right.  Duh?

 On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Josh Luthman
 j...@imaginenetworksllc.comwrote:

  Seriously my brain hurts that is so dumb.
 
  A human right?
 
  Josh Luthman
  Office: 937-552-2340
  Direct: 937-552-2343
  1100 Wayne St
  Suite 1337
  Troy, OH 45373
 
  When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
  improbable, must be the truth.
  --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
 
 
  On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote:
 
   Thanks for your post Dave. I didn't know this was going on.
  
   David Hulsebus wrote:
FYI
   
 From SANS Newsbites Vol. 11 Num. 82 : Broadband Internet Access
 Deemed
a Legal Right
   
--Finland Declares 1Mb Broadband Access a Legal Right
(October 14  15, 2009)
The Finnish government has enacted a law making 1Mb broadband
 Internet
access a legal right.  The law will take effect in July 2010.  The
country may eventually guarantee its citizens the right to 100Mb
broadband connections.  Finland's Transport and Communications
 Ministry
spokesperson Laura Vikkonen was quoted as saying that We think [the
Internet is] something you cannot live without in modern society.
  Like
banking services or water or electricity, you need an Internet
connection.  Earlier this year, France declared Internet access to
 be
a human right.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10374831-2.html
   
  
 
 http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/10/15/finland-makes-broadband-internet-a-legal-right.aspx
   
   
   
Dave Hulsebus
Portative Technologies, LLC
www.portative.com
   
   
   
   
   --
   Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
   Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
   Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
   www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com
  
   Sent from my Pizzicato PluckString...
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
   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] Net Neutrality

2009-09-25 Thread Clint Ricker
?

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.comwrote:

 Tell that to espn.
 marlon

 - Original Message -
 From: Clint Ricker cric...@kentnis.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 6:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality


  Tom,
  Your hypothetical about Comcast, etc... creating private networks is
  unfounded and not likely to happen.  In the end, it misses the point that
  the Internet, from a consumer perspective, is NOT bandwidth and has
 very
  little to do with the bits and bytes that you shuffle around your
 network.
  The Internet IS the edge, it's the applications and users (since so much
  content is peer-generated these days).
 
  Want proof?  Block Google and Facebook for 1 day and see how many people
  care that your service is working :).  Do it for a week and see how
 many
  customers you retain.  Repeat for any of the other apps that your
  customers
  use.  The balance of power, in terms of customer retention, is on the
  application providers side, since, from a customer perspective, the apps
  are
  Internet.
 
  As I recall, the private networks were tried back in the 90s by AOL,
  etc...  they had a user base of millions and lots of premium content (in
  terms of dollar investment, the best content was on AOL, Compuserv,
  Prodigy, etc... for a time).  It didn't matter, the users overwhelmingly
  chose the open Internet.  Even the WISPA crowd has been more profitable
  than
  the guys that chose to do private networks :)
 
  Oh, and there's the small detail that every service provider in the
 nation
  is running their network over public assets: whether it's on the poles,
 in
  the ground, or running over wireless using licensed (leased) or
 unlicensed
  spectrum (which isn't quite the same deal, I realize).  If they want to
  run
  private networks, then they have to do it on land that they own or that
  they compensate the government for appropriately--current pole attachment
  rates and so forth are not applicable to companies that are wanting to
  build
  out solely private networks.
 
  -Clint Ricker
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Tom DeReggi
  wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote:
 
  For those that have not yet read it, the relevent site to read is
 
  http://www.openinternet.gov/read-speech.html
 
  We need to realize and seperate two things...
 
  1) that the intent of NetNeutrality expressed at this site, is an
  idealalistic view, to keep the Internet open and free, which is hard to
  combat based on the ideals, and we should recognize that the goal of
 an
  open Internet is not specifically what we are fighting.
  2) The reality that idealistic views dont translate to how the Internet
  Industry really works. And the site's proposed methodology to attempt
  preservation of an open network, infact may be harmful to consumers and
  delivery of most common Internet services from competitive Access
  providers.
  What we need to fight are mechanisms and ideas that harm access
  providers,
  or that prioritize content provider's needs over that of access
  providers.
 
  There is an important thing to realize. One of NetNeutrality's biggest
  advocates is now I think Chief of Staff. (Bruce somebody). NetNeutrality
  will be directly addressed in the new FCC, we can count on that. More so
  than in past commissions.
 
  Over the next 3 months I believe WISPA will need to get actively engaged
  in
  Netneutrality lobbying. It will need to be a combined effort between
  legislative and FCC committees.
  The Legislative committee will need to fight bills being plannedd to be
  introducted to congress, and FCC committee will need to fight for WISP
  rights in soon to come FCC rulemaking.
  It is my belief that government policy makers are timming their efforts
  so
  legislation and FCC rules will come to effect togeather, as legislation
  is
  pointing to the FCC to make rules.
  We can start to lobby legislators now, while bills are government
 working
  groups. And possibly there could  be public hearings, where we might be
  able
  to request participation in them?
  For FCC, we most likely would need to wait for the Notice of PRoposed
  Rule
  making. Allthough ideally, its technically possible to lobby for
 proposed
  rules to never get to rule making stage.
  (although I dont think its likely for that to occur).
 
  We are going to need to decide whether we want to fight the core concept
  all
  togeather, or fight for details and wording that make the idealisitic
  views
  realistic in a way not to harm ISP.
  I believe we will likely have a better chance of winning our view, if we
  all
  togeather fight netneutrality in its entirely, jsut because we'd ahve
  cable
  TV and RBOCs endorsement in addition to our WISP view.  But the risk
  there
  is that we do not protect ourselve from predator practices of monopoly
  like
  providers, and we risk loosing altogeather

Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for

2009-09-24 Thread Clint Ricker
Where is everyone getting that you are allowed to prioritize anything?  The
speech details three points along the subject of prioritization.  The Julius
Genachowski's recent speech specifically said no prioritization--refer to
section 5.

- This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their
networks (blocking / deprioritizing)
- or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in
the connection to subscribers’ homes (prioritizing)
- During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be appropriate
for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out everyone
else (block / degrade on a per-user basis, rather than per-application?)
- Doesn't apply to managed services (I believe that he's referring to metro
Ethernet with QOS)
- open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and
applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted
works, which has serious economic consequences. (As I said in my Senate
confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful content,
services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of
copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences.)

Where has any statement been made regarding prioritization being ok?

Thanks,
-Clint Ricker




On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.netwrote:

 Right, which is why I phrased it that way.  You can't deprioritize
 anything,
 but you can prioritize anything (based upon what I've read on this list).
 They accomplish the same thing, but at face value, one is permissible the
 other is not.


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



 --
 From: Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net
 Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:53 PM
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for

  You'd have to ask the FCC.  Seems like it's the opposite side of the same
  coin.
 
  Jeff
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
  Behalf Of Mike Hammett
  Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 1:51 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for
 
  What's the difference between prioritizing all traditional services above
  other and deprioritizing the bad ones below other?
 
 
  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions
  http://www.ics-il.com
 
 
 
  --
  From: Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net
  Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:07 PM
  To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for
 
  The FCC has said that you cannot de-prioritize any type of traffic.  You
  have to do it by prioritizing other types of traffic.
 
  Jeff
  ImageStream
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
  Behalf Of Jerry Richardson
  Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:53 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting
 for
 
  I read the Fifth as I cannot discriminate - meaning block this but not
  that.
  It says nothing about shaping.
 
  Jerry
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
  Behalf Of David E. Smith
  Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:33 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for
 
  http://openinternet.gov/read-speech.html
 
  In addition to the four classic Network neutrality principles, the FCC
  plans to pursue two more. Quotes from the speech:
 
  * The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that
  broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet
  content
  or applications.
  * The sixth principle is a transparency principle -- stating that
  providers
  of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network
  management practices.
 
  I love the sixth one, but number five gives me the willies. Nope,
  doesn't
  matter that BitTorrent users bring your network to its knees, you're not
  allowed to do anything about it. Please tell me I'm missing something.
 
  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

Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

2009-09-24 Thread Clint Ricker
I am all too aware of the weakness of wireless networks in regards to
streaming of video.

That said, I cannot see how over the top video is a bad thing for
independent ISPs, even if wireless technology has to make some progress to
handle it.  It removes triple play as a competitive advantage for your
competitors and hurts them a LOT more than it costs the independent ISPs.
If anything, independent ISPs (especially wireline independent ISPs) should
be advertising Internet access, includes 10 million channels for FREE and
get people to shift the $1,500-$2,000 a year that they are spending on
triple play packages over your way.

-Clint Ricker




On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:06 AM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote:

 This is imminent. The questions is: whose network? -RickG

 On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com
 wrote:
  One thing you can bank on, it WILL take hold.
 
  The need for more Bandwidth won't be stopped anytime soon, I believe.
  Eventually most if not all communications will run over the same network,
  which if you think about it, all the communications out there seem to
 touch
  the internet at least in part.
 
 
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
  Behalf Of Clint Ricker
  Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 9:21 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
 
  For the mainstream ISPs (the big RBOCs and MSOs), their bandwidth costs
 are
  very, very low and are a small fraction of their overall costs.  However,
  that statement does ignore the costs of perpetually upgrading their
 network
  to handle larger volumes of bandwidth.  From a cost perspective, that is
 the
  main motivation for the big players to shape traffic.  However, even that
 is
  small compared to the potential loss of revenue if over the top video
  takes hold.
 
  -Clint
 
 
 
  On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   It's back
  
   http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews
 
  I am just waiting for them to say bitcaps are a no no.  When you think
  about it with a bit cap you cannot really use the Internet to
  completely replace the catv or dish service.  Some consumers I am sure
  are going to say that's not fair and some clueless law makers will
  likely believe them.
 
  I have already heard some 'expert' IT people on blogs brag that
  bandwidth costs ISP's virtually nothing and the only reason for
  bitcaps is to prevent competing video services from taking market
  share.
 
  Matt
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  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/




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] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for

2009-09-24 Thread Clint Ricker
The language of point 3 is targetting heavy users, not applications that
may be heavy under some, even common, circumstances.  While it seems like a
small detail, it is, in fact, a big distinction--why should I be blocked
from using bit torrent to download a gutenberg ebook (ie legal  small)
because my neighbor is doing warez full throttle, 24/7/365?

Genachowski specifically alluded to Comcast degrading bit torrent traffic,
something that Comcast claimed to be doing for reasons of network management
and blocking of illegal content.

Waving the illegal content flag is, in my opinion, very short sighted:
- Legal video streaming services (hulu, netflix on demand) are rising.
These are worse, in a lot of ways, than the bit torrent model since it
requires a sustained throughput to provide a usable customer experience.
They also often use HTTP or other common protocols.
- Bit Torrent itself is trending more legal; major content providers and
software companies are using it for legal distribution of content while the
illegal content is making its way to other networks that are more secure /
private
- Last, but certainly not least, content providers are VERY eager to sign up
the ISPs as content cops.  Once you start down that road, you may very
well find yourself as an operator having given away your own safe harbor
rights and having the legal obligation to police your network for bad
content.  In general, it's hard to not see the WISPs taking the side of
major MSOs, RBOCs, and content providers as a dangerous game.  It's one
thing to decide to block bit torrent because it carries a large percentage
of illegal content.  It's another thing when you have to implement, at your
own expense, url / ip filtering, install deep packet inspection hardware
(VERY expensive), and other extensive, expensive, and very time consuming
process or face repeated and ongoing liability every time some kid on your
network wants to duck out on paying 99c for an mp3.

The content providers have been pushing for this for years; if ISPs start
dancing the same tune to win the right to do some occasional fiddling with
some packets, it would likely shift the balance of power.  Given that many
of the major service providers (Comcast, Time Warner, etc...) are also major
content providers meaning that the expenses of manditory content filtering
carried by the service provider business are offset by potential increases
in profitability for the content producing side of the house.  You, on the
other hand, have nothing to gain here.

You thought CALEA was bad?

-Clint Ricker










On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com wrote:


 Take a look at the third and the fifth bullet points.

 --C

 Clint Ricker wrote:
  Where is everyone getting that you are allowed to prioritize anything?
  The
  speech details three points along the subject of prioritization.  The
 Julius
  Genachowski's recent speech specifically said no prioritization--refer
 to
  section 5.
 
  - This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their
  networks (blocking / deprioritizing)
  - or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others
 in
  the connection to subscribers' homes (prioritizing)
  - During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be
 appropriate
  for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out everyone
  else (block / degrade on a per-user basis, rather than per-application?)
  - Doesn't apply to managed services (I believe that he's referring to
 metro
  Ethernet with QOS)
  - open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and
  applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of
 copyrighted
  works, which has serious economic consequences. (As I said in my Senate
  confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful
 content,
  services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution
 of
  copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences.)
 
  Where has any statement been made regarding prioritization being ok?
 
  Thanks,
  -Clint Ricker
 
 
 
 
  On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net
 wrote:
 
 
  Right, which is why I phrased it that way.  You can't deprioritize
  anything,
  but you can prioritize anything (based upon what I've read on this
 list).
  They accomplish the same thing, but at face value, one is permissible
 the
  other is not.
 
 
  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions
  http://www.ics-il.com
 
 
 
  --
  From: Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net
  Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:53 PM
  To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting
 for
 
 
  You'd have to ask the FCC.  Seems like it's the opposite side of the
 same
  coin.
 
  Jeff
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless

Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for

2009-09-24 Thread Clint Ricker
What do you mean by do I think the same things would be happening?

I have no love for the FCC under the Bush administration, and I think their
actions were either the result of blatant corruption or stupidity.  It's
hard to look at their regulatory history and not be suspicious of the
motivations for such a pro-telco agenda.

That said, the competition of the late 90s was largely fake in a lot of
ways.  One of the fundamental purposes of the Telecom Act of 1996 was to
force linesharing as a transitional stage while competitive carriers built
out their own networks.  Very little last mile buildout by CLECs actually
happened--most CLECs just rode Ma Bells lines and were basically just
glorified salespeople fronting private label bell products.  A lot of money
was made through various forms of arbitrage plays--which, given that they
sucked a lot of revenue out of the industry without adding any value,
weren't good.  Unfortunately, this sort of arbitrage mentality still infects
a lot of the telecom market.

On the other hand, the same arbitrage plays did have the benefit of making
dialin PRIs very profitable, making unlimited dialup Internet access
feasible and setting the general consumer expectation that Internet should
not be metered in the same way as normal telephone calls.

I'm not sure what you mean by cable didn't have anything to do with this.
The market share, as well as the lack of regulations on the cable companies
was one of the main talking points behind getting the Tauzin-Dingell act
pushed through Congress.

Regardless, I think your general question is would we need forced network
neutrality if the provisions of the telecom act of 1996 were still in place
to some degree.  I think so:
- As previously mentioned, no one really pursued last mile buildout except
for the MSOs and ILECs.  This means that any competition is going to be
forced to some degree by regulations.
- Eventually, IPTV / triple play would still be the logical evolution of
service providers, whether they are ILECs, MSOs, or CLECs.
- Once they offer voice / video services, they have every incentive to make
sure that competitive services don't perform well on their network.  This
doesn't change if you go from 2 providers in a zip code to 5, they still
have the same incentives.
- If CLECs were still viable, then the regular MA trends would have lead to
heavy consolidations. and there still wouldn't be that much more
competition.
- The basic problem that net neutrality solves is that traffic shaping has
the potential to fracture the Internet.  If application providers need to
pay more in general to send content to the Internet, then fine.  However,
the overhead of requiring application providers to negotiate with each and
every network provider in the world to ensure that they have a viable path
to the end-consumer essentially kills any innovation from anyone other than
the biggest of companies.  A standard of sorts is necessary, much in the
same way that power companies are regulated to ensure that their voltage is
consistent all across the US.

Still, I wish the past 8 years of regulatory actions had gone differently.
I think business customers, specifically, really got screwed by the last 8
years of regulation: residential Internet access is generally cheap, while
millions of small business are still stuck with $700 T1s as their best
method for getting on the Internet.  Had regulation changes not killed off
CLECs and killed line sharing requirements (or, at least cast enough doubt
on them to make any investment very questionable), I think CLECs,
unrestrained by having a big cash cow of existing T1 customers, would  have
made that space a lot more interesting.


-Clint Ricker





On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Scottie Arnett sarn...@info-ed.comwrote:

 One question Clint. If you go all the way back to the FCC Computer
 Inquiries Acts I, II, and III...do you think all the same things would be
 happening? What if the FCC did not get rid of the enforcement bureau that
 was handling this? And after that the Tauzin-Dinguall Acts in the late 90's
 early 2000's? Keep in mind at the time Cable had nothing to do with this.

 When it comes down to the $$$... The telephone companies were missing out
 on their own boat ... as to say( back in the days when BBS's became web
 sites) and VOIP was just a dream. They saw they were missing out and
 everything since the mid 90's and what the FCC has done has only helped the
 RBOC's and ILEC's. I can name numerous claims that support this.

 Scottie

 -- Original Message --
 From: Clint Ricker cric...@kentnis.com
 Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Date:  Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:48:53 -0400

 The language of point 3 is targetting heavy users, not applications
 that
 may be heavy under some, even common, circumstances.  While it seems like
 a
 small detail, it is, in fact, a big distinction--why should I be blocked
 from using bit torrent

Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

2009-09-23 Thread Clint Ricker
For the mainstream ISPs (the big RBOCs and MSOs), their bandwidth costs are
very, very low and are a small fraction of their overall costs.  However,
that statement does ignore the costs of perpetually upgrading their network
to handle larger volumes of bandwidth.  From a cost perspective, that is the
main motivation for the big players to shape traffic.  However, even that is
small compared to the potential loss of revenue if over the top video
takes hold.

-Clint



On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote:

  It's back
 
  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews

 I am just waiting for them to say bitcaps are a no no.  When you think
 about it with a bit cap you cannot really use the Internet to
 completely replace the catv or dish service.  Some consumers I am sure
 are going to say that's not fair and some clueless law makers will
 likely believe them.

 I have already heard some 'expert' IT people on blogs brag that
 bandwidth costs ISP's virtually nothing and the only reason for
 bitcaps is to prevent competing video services from taking market
 share.

 Matt



 
 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] Net Neutrality

2009-09-22 Thread Clint Ricker
Tom,
Your hypothetical about Comcast, etc... creating private networks is
unfounded and not likely to happen.  In the end, it misses the point that
the Internet, from a consumer perspective, is NOT bandwidth and has very
little to do with the bits and bytes that you shuffle around your network.
The Internet IS the edge, it's the applications and users (since so much
content is peer-generated these days).

Want proof?  Block Google and Facebook for 1 day and see how many people
care that your service is working :).  Do it for a week and see how many
customers you retain.  Repeat for any of the other apps that your customers
use.  The balance of power, in terms of customer retention, is on the
application providers side, since, from a customer perspective, the apps are
Internet.

As I recall, the private networks were tried back in the 90s by AOL,
etc...  they had a user base of millions and lots of premium content (in
terms of dollar investment, the best content was on AOL, Compuserv,
Prodigy, etc... for a time).  It didn't matter, the users overwhelmingly
chose the open Internet.  Even the WISPA crowd has been more profitable than
the guys that chose to do private networks :)

Oh, and there's the small detail that every service provider in the nation
is running their network over public assets: whether it's on the poles, in
the ground, or running over wireless using licensed (leased) or unlicensed
spectrum (which isn't quite the same deal, I realize).  If they want to run
private networks, then they have to do it on land that they own or that
they compensate the government for appropriately--current pole attachment
rates and so forth are not applicable to companies that are wanting to build
out solely private networks.

-Clint Ricker







On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote:

 For those that have not yet read it, the relevent site to read is

 http://www.openinternet.gov/read-speech.html

 We need to realize and seperate two things...

 1) that the intent of NetNeutrality expressed at this site, is an
 idealalistic view, to keep the Internet open and free, which is hard to
 combat based on the ideals, and we should recognize that the goal of an
 open Internet is not specifically what we are fighting.
 2) The reality that idealistic views dont translate to how the Internet
 Industry really works. And the site's proposed methodology to attempt
 preservation of an open network, infact may be harmful to consumers and
 delivery of most common Internet services from competitive Access
 providers.
 What we need to fight are mechanisms and ideas that harm access providers,
 or that prioritize content provider's needs over that of access providers.

 There is an important thing to realize. One of NetNeutrality's biggest
 advocates is now I think Chief of Staff. (Bruce somebody). NetNeutrality
 will be directly addressed in the new FCC, we can count on that. More so
 than in past commissions.

 Over the next 3 months I believe WISPA will need to get actively engaged in
 Netneutrality lobbying. It will need to be a combined effort between
 legislative and FCC committees.
 The Legislative committee will need to fight bills being plannedd to be
 introducted to congress, and FCC committee will need to fight for WISP
 rights in soon to come FCC rulemaking.
 It is my belief that government policy makers are timming their efforts so
 legislation and FCC rules will come to effect togeather, as legislation is
 pointing to the FCC to make rules.
 We can start to lobby legislators now, while bills are government working
 groups. And possibly there could  be public hearings, where we might be
 able
 to request participation in them?
 For FCC, we most likely would need to wait for the Notice of PRoposed Rule
 making. Allthough ideally, its technically possible to lobby for proposed
 rules to never get to rule making stage.
 (although I dont think its likely for that to occur).

 We are going to need to decide whether we want to fight the core concept
 all
 togeather, or fight for details and wording that make the idealisitic views
 realistic in a way not to harm ISP.
 I believe we will likely have a better chance of winning our view, if we
 all
 togeather fight netneutrality in its entirely, jsut because we'd ahve cable
 TV and RBOCs endorsement in addition to our WISP view.  But the risk there
 is that we do not protect ourselve from predator practices of monopoly like
 providers, and we risk loosing altogeather, if consumers gain more support
 than providers do. The risk is that protecting the majority of consumers
 (cable and RBOC subscribers with 80%+ market share) has greater benefit
 than
 protecting the few vulnerable providers (less than 20% market share by
 small
 ISPs and WISPs).

 We need to remind the government that the open Internet originally was a
 network paid for by the government. In Today's Internet, providers are
 required to pay for building access

Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

2009-09-22 Thread Clint Ricker
Then don't run a business that is essential a utility.


On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.netwrote:

 I'm pretty safe with my opinion.  Get the hell out of my business,
 government.

 BTW:  Hulu is owned by ABC, NBC, Fox, and the tech company that came up
 with
 it.


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



 --
 From: Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com
 Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:23 PM
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

 
  I think you're all jumping to conclusions.  There will be
  modifications.  You will probably find that you'll be able to limit
  outgoing bittorrent and block spam from botnetted machines, block
  illegal activity, etc.  How do you determine illegal bittorrent
  (uploading of copyrighted content, etc.) from legal  (uploading of GNU
  licensed open source)?   There lies the big question.
 
  I think they're saying things like Time-Warner can't prioritize CNN
  (which is owned by Time, Inc.) over MSNBC or Youtube over hulu, etc.  I
  still say they should allow you to prioritize VOIP over everything else.
  IMHO
 
  --Curtis
 
 
  Jerry Richardson wrote:
  I can't agree more.
 
  Blocking (0 bits passed) is constitutionally wrong IMO.  Since I can
 no
  longer distinguish legal traffic from illegal traffic I have to allow it
  all.
 
  Shaping/Throttling/Caps is not only 100% within my rights, but as an ISP
  is prudent and a critical part of my business model and I would win that
  fight in court every time.
 
  We stopped selling residential service two years ago - they use more,
 pay
  less, and need the most support - however it's clear that this has
  hampered growth.
 
  I am planning to implement metered billing on our network. The plan is
 to
  determine the traffic utilization of 95% of our customers in each
 service
  tier and set that as the baseline. Moving forward light users will pay
  less and heavy users will pay more. It's the only way I can think of to
  survive and be fair.
 
  Jerry Richardson
  airCloud Communications.
 
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
  Behalf Of Jack Unger
  Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:08 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
 
  Hi John,
 
  I appreciate hearing your thoughts and I believe that I understand the
  ISP concerns that new regulations may force ISPs to pass large or
  unlimited amounts of traffic to the detriment of 1) other ISP customers
  and 2) the financial well-being of the ISP.
 
  Again the two main Network Neutrality (NN) issues are 1) Bandwidth and
 2)
  Content.
 
  Bandwidth should already be managed by all ISPs and no one (not the
  Government and not a competitor) should be able to force an ISP to
  deliver more bandwidth to a customer than the amount that the customer
  contracted for. If I want to stream an HDTV presentation but I only
  contracted for 256 k of bandwidth then I have no right to complain if
 the
  HDTV movie doesn't stream smoothly.
 
  Content is where I believe that the free speech issue is relevant. There
  area two (or perhaps more) sides of free speech.
 
  1. THE POLITICAL SIDE - There is the political side and this is the side
  that I am concerned with when I say that protecting free speech is
 vital.
  When Democrats are in power, I don't want them to have the right to keep
  Republicans from using the Internet to discuss ideas that oppose the
  Democrats. When Republicans are in power, I don't want them to have the
  right to keep Democrats from using the Internet to discuss ideas that
  oppose the Republicans. When either Democrats or Republicans are in
  power, I don't want either of them to have the right to keep independent
  voices from organizing or using the Internet to discuss independent
  ideas. This is what I mean by protecting and preserving the right to
  free speech.
 
  2. THE COMMERCIAL SIDE - Currently, we live in a commercialized
 (possibly
  an over-commercialized) world. When many journalists write about Network
  Neutrality they could care less about protecting the political side of
  free speech. All they focus on is the commercial side of Content - for
  example Service and Content Provider A is blocking the services of
  Content Provider B.  To me, this is a Restraint of Trade issue
  rather than a political Free Speech issue but it still falls under the
  heading of Content and is therefore addressed by NN.
 
  Should NN address the commercial side of Content?? Yes, I think it's
  appropriate that it does. Should one Content and Service provider be
  allowed to prohibit or unfairly delay the services of another Content
  provider who is using their network?? No, I don't think so. Every
 service
  provider should be required to carry the content of every other content
  or service provider equally, without restriction AS 

Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

2009-09-22 Thread Clint Ricker
Err, I don't think this summary is accurate.  The focus is on net neutrality
for applications, regardless of protocol.  Considering how often the FCC has
referenced VOIP, including Skype (which does use P2P technology), in these
discussions, on and off the record, the FCC isn't looking just to make sure
that both CNN and Fox News get speedy delivery times.  They are looking to
make sure that over the top services of all sorts are viable and aren't
blocked by the service provider for competitive reasons.

This really shouldn't be a problem for service providers.  For the past
several years, the FCC has been publicizing the standpoint that they are not
going to allow discrimination on an application.  They have never said that
you can't shape on a _per user_ basis.

If you've designed your network to any degree of sanity, that 1MB of traffic
transmitted over BitTorrent is the same as 1MB of traffic transmitted over
HTTP.  If that isn't the case, then stop buying Linksys routers at WalMart
and step up to real gear.  Set bandwidth caps.   Block your heaviest users.


Bit Torrent isn't your enemy and doesn't cost you any more money than HTTP.
Heavy users cost you money, regardless as to whether they are using bit
torrent, hulu, usenet, or whatever.

-Clint Ricker




On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com wrote:


 I think you're all jumping to conclusions.  There will be
 modifications.  You will probably find that you'll be able to limit
 outgoing bittorrent and block spam from botnetted machines, block
 illegal activity, etc.  How do you determine illegal bittorrent
 (uploading of copyrighted content, etc.) from legal  (uploading of GNU
 licensed open source)?   There lies the big question.

 I think they're saying things like Time-Warner can't prioritize CNN
 (which is owned by Time, Inc.) over MSNBC or Youtube over hulu, etc.  I
 still say they should allow you to prioritize VOIP over everything else.
 IMHO

 --Curtis


 Jerry Richardson wrote:
  I can't agree more.
 
  Blocking (0 bits passed) is constitutionally wrong IMO.  Since I can no
 longer distinguish legal traffic from illegal traffic I have to allow it
 all.
 
  Shaping/Throttling/Caps is not only 100% within my rights, but as an ISP
 is prudent and a critical part of my business model and I would win that
 fight in court every time.
 
  We stopped selling residential service two years ago - they use more, pay
 less, and need the most support - however it's clear that this has hampered
 growth.
 
  I am planning to implement metered billing on our network. The plan is to
 determine the traffic utilization of 95% of our customers in each service
 tier and set that as the baseline. Moving forward light users will pay less
 and heavy users will pay more. It's the only way I can think of to survive
 and be fair.
 
  Jerry Richardson
  airCloud Communications.
 
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Jack Unger
  Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:08 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
 
  Hi John,
 
  I appreciate hearing your thoughts and I believe that I understand the
 ISP concerns that new regulations may force ISPs to pass large or unlimited
 amounts of traffic to the detriment of 1) other ISP customers and 2) the
 financial well-being of the ISP.
 
  Again the two main Network Neutrality (NN) issues are 1) Bandwidth and 2)
 Content.
 
  Bandwidth should already be managed by all ISPs and no one (not the
 Government and not a competitor) should be able to force an ISP to deliver
 more bandwidth to a customer than the amount that the customer contracted
 for. If I want to stream an HDTV presentation but I only contracted for 256
 k of bandwidth then I have no right to complain if the HDTV movie doesn't
 stream smoothly.
 
  Content is where I believe that the free speech issue is relevant. There
 area two (or perhaps more) sides of free speech.
 
  1. THE POLITICAL SIDE - There is the political side and this is the side
 that I am concerned with when I say that protecting free speech is vital.
 When Democrats are in power, I don't want them to have the right to keep
 Republicans from using the Internet to discuss ideas that oppose the
 Democrats. When Republicans are in power, I don't want them to have the
 right to keep Democrats from using the Internet to discuss ideas that oppose
 the Republicans. When either Democrats or Republicans are in power, I don't
 want either of them to have the right to keep independent voices from
 organizing or using the Internet to discuss independent ideas. This is what
 I mean by protecting and preserving the right to free speech.
 
  2. THE COMMERCIAL SIDE - Currently, we live in a commercialized (possibly
 an over-commercialized) world. When many journalists write about Network
 Neutrality they could care less about protecting the political side of free
 speech. All they focus on is the commercial side

Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

2009-09-22 Thread Clint Ricker
Mike,
To clarify what I meant here:
If you want to run a business without any government interference, that is
fine and understandable.  But, considering that for the past century,
telecommunications and utilities have been some of the most heavily
regulated industries in the US (and around the world), you should have known
when you where getting into the ISP game that you'd be subject to this sort
of interference by the government.  The  only reason why independent WISPs
get as little regulation as they do is that they, by and large, aren't all
that successful and don't pop up very prominently on the radar

This isn't an industry for libertarians.  Telecommunications companies, by
necessity, leverage too much public right of way (whether in terms of pole
attachments or spectrum or otherwise) for the government to say you're
taking public assets, but what the hell, do whatever you want to maximize
your profits at the expense of the public).  Telecommunication providers are
guests on public right of ways, and the government has every right to put
restrictions to ensure that their guests operate with some vague pretension
of public interest.

-Clint Ricker

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Clint Ricker cric...@kentnis.com wrote:

 Then don't run a business that is essential a utility.



 On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.netwrote:

 I'm pretty safe with my opinion.  Get the hell out of my business,
 government.

 BTW:  Hulu is owned by ABC, NBC, Fox, and the tech company that came up
 with
 it.


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



 --
 From: Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com
 Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:23 PM
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

 
  I think you're all jumping to conclusions.  There will be
  modifications.  You will probably find that you'll be able to limit
  outgoing bittorrent and block spam from botnetted machines, block
  illegal activity, etc.  How do you determine illegal bittorrent
  (uploading of copyrighted content, etc.) from legal  (uploading of GNU
  licensed open source)?   There lies the big question.
 
  I think they're saying things like Time-Warner can't prioritize CNN
  (which is owned by Time, Inc.) over MSNBC or Youtube over hulu, etc.  I
  still say they should allow you to prioritize VOIP over everything else.
  IMHO
 
  --Curtis
 
 
  Jerry Richardson wrote:
  I can't agree more.
 
  Blocking (0 bits passed) is constitutionally wrong IMO.  Since I can
 no
  longer distinguish legal traffic from illegal traffic I have to allow
 it
  all.
 
  Shaping/Throttling/Caps is not only 100% within my rights, but as an
 ISP
  is prudent and a critical part of my business model and I would win
 that
  fight in court every time.
 
  We stopped selling residential service two years ago - they use more,
 pay
  less, and need the most support - however it's clear that this has
  hampered growth.
 
  I am planning to implement metered billing on our network. The plan is
 to
  determine the traffic utilization of 95% of our customers in each
 service
  tier and set that as the baseline. Moving forward light users will pay
  less and heavy users will pay more. It's the only way I can think of to
  survive and be fair.
 
  Jerry Richardson
  airCloud Communications.
 
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
 On
  Behalf Of Jack Unger
  Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:08 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
 
  Hi John,
 
  I appreciate hearing your thoughts and I believe that I understand the
  ISP concerns that new regulations may force ISPs to pass large or
  unlimited amounts of traffic to the detriment of 1) other ISP customers
  and 2) the financial well-being of the ISP.
 
  Again the two main Network Neutrality (NN) issues are 1) Bandwidth and
 2)
  Content.
 
  Bandwidth should already be managed by all ISPs and no one (not the
  Government and not a competitor) should be able to force an ISP to
  deliver more bandwidth to a customer than the amount that the customer
  contracted for. If I want to stream an HDTV presentation but I only
  contracted for 256 k of bandwidth then I have no right to complain if
 the
  HDTV movie doesn't stream smoothly.
 
  Content is where I believe that the free speech issue is relevant.
 There
  area two (or perhaps more) sides of free speech.
 
  1. THE POLITICAL SIDE - There is the political side and this is the
 side
  that I am concerned with when I say that protecting free speech is
 vital.
  When Democrats are in power, I don't want them to have the right to
 keep
  Republicans from using the Internet to discuss ideas that oppose the
  Democrats. When Republicans are in power, I don't want them to have the
  right to keep Democrats from using the Internet to discuss ideas that
  oppose

Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

2009-09-22 Thread Clint Ricker
The key words in the FCC quote is users, not applications.

They aren't restricting your ability to block or degrade IP address
162.21.25.200 because that IP address is generating spam or running up
terabytes of traffic a month when you only have a DSL backhaul.

They are trying to restrict your ability to say my heaviest users all use
bit torrent, so I'm going to block bit torrent.

In other words, shape on users, not on user actionsblock/restrict the
heaviest users, not the heaviest applications.

This doesn't really change anything for WISPs, since it has the same effect
and is really a better approach in any case.  It lets you give the ideal
experience for ALL applications to your ideal customers.  And you can
directly target your heaviest users.  This is a lot better than potentially
losing good customers (ie low bandwidht customers) because they can't get
bit torrent to work when they try to use it twice a month.

-Clint Ricker




On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote:

 Okay.  Isn't this what most of us already do in our Terms Of Service
 notice?
 So if it's just a matter of notification then the issue would be void on
 day
 one as far as traffic shaping is concerned.  Am I right on my understanding
 of this?

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Curtis Maurand
 Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 8:58 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

 I just read the fifth rule in the speech and I quote it below and the
 remarks made by Mr. Genachowski:


Fifth Principle of Non-Discrimination

The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that
broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet
content or applications.

 This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their
 networks, or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over
 others in the connection to subscribers' homes. Nor can they disfavor an
 Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered
 by that broadband provider. The Internet must continue to allow users to
 decide what content and applications succeed.

 This principle will not prevent broadband providers from reasonably
 managing their networks. During periods of network congestion, for
 example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy
 users do not crowd out everyone else. And this principle will not
 constrain efforts to ensure a safe, secure, and spam-free Internet
 experience, or to enforce the law. It is vital that illegal conduct be
 curtailed on the Internet. As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing,
 open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and
 applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of
 copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. The
 enforcement of copyright and other laws and the obligations of network
 openness can and must co-exist.

 I also recognize that there may be benefits to innovation and investment
 of broadband providers offering managed services in limited
 circumstances. These services are different than traditional broadband
 Internet access, and some have argued they should be analyzed under a
 different framework. I believe such services can supplement -- but must
 not supplant -- free and open Internet access, and that we must ensure
 that ample bandwidth exists for all Internet users and innovators. In
 the rulemaking process I will discuss in a moment, we will carefully
 consider how to approach the question of managed services in a way that
 maximizes the innovation and investment necessary for a robust and
 thriving Internet.

 The sixth rule just says that if you're going to throttle things like
 peer to peer, you're going to have to notify your users before you do it.

 Reads just I thought it would.  It doesn't prevent you from throttling
 bittorrent uploaders, etc.  Everyone should read the speech.  Its not as
 bad as the media makes it out to be.

 --Curtis




 Mike Hammett wrote:
  Worldwide, the US ISPs don't have that much power.  See Comcast tell DT,
  PCCW, NTT, etc. to fly a kite and Comcast will be the odd man out.
 
 
  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions
  http://www.ics-il.com
 
 
 
  --
  From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net
  Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 4:04 PM
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
 
 
  For those that have not yet read it, the relevent site to read is
 
  http://www.openinternet.gov/read-speech.html
 
  We need to realize and seperate two things...
 
  1) that the intent of NetNeutrality expressed at this site, is an
  idealalistic view, to keep the Internet open and free, which is hard to
  combat based on the ideals, and we should recognize that the goal of
 an
  open

Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

2009-09-22 Thread Clint Ricker
That was exactly my point.  You're not bringing the T1 down to it's knees,
you're bringing the router down to its knees.  The solution is a combination
of either getting better routers and/or NOT doing any operations on layer 4
or above.

If you are strictly switching / routing (and not natting, shaping, blocking,
doing access lists, or anything else that involves anything above layers
2/3), then the # of connections is irrelevant.  PPS can matter, but
typically the problems with PPS are because you're having the CPU operate on
EACH and EVERY packet.  Most routers can do amazing throughput if you
actually only use them like routers and don't have them do anything above
layer 3.

-Clint Ricker




On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Scottie Arnett sarn...@info-ed.comwrote:

 If you've designed your network to any degree of sanity, that 1MB of
 traffic
 transmitted over BitTorrent is the same as 1MB of traffic transmitted over
 HTTP.

 I disagree. The pps/connections that http traffic creates is NOTHING
 compared to bittorrent! If you want to test it, put you up two AP's of the
 exact same, and run 1 Mbit of each over that link and see how it affects
 your browsing experience of 10 other people on each AP. I have seen dial-up
 users connected at 26kbit with virii that transmitted a high amount of
 pps/connections bring down a T1 to its knees!

 Scottie


 -- Original Message --
 From: Clint Ricker cric...@kentnis.com
 Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Date:  Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:09:45 -0400

 Err, I don't think this summary is accurate.  The focus is on net
 neutrality
 for applications, regardless of protocol.  Considering how often the FCC
 has
 referenced VOIP, including Skype (which does use P2P technology), in these
 discussions, on and off the record, the FCC isn't looking just to make
 sure
 that both CNN and Fox News get speedy delivery times.  They are looking to
 make sure that over the top services of all sorts are viable and aren't
 blocked by the service provider for competitive reasons.
 
 This really shouldn't be a problem for service providers.  For the past
 several years, the FCC has been publicizing the standpoint that they are
 not
 going to allow discrimination on an application.  They have never said
 that
 you can't shape on a _per user_ basis.
 
 If you've designed your network to any degree of sanity, that 1MB of
 traffic
 transmitted over BitTorrent is the same as 1MB of traffic transmitted over
 HTTP.  If that isn't the case, then stop buying Linksys routers at WalMart
 and step up to real gear.  Set bandwidth caps.   Block your heaviest
 users.
 
 
 Bit Torrent isn't your enemy and doesn't cost you any more money than
 HTTP.
 Heavy users cost you money, regardless as to whether they are using bit
 torrent, hulu, usenet, or whatever.
 
 -Clint Ricker
 
 
 
 
 On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com
 wrote:
 
 
  I think you're all jumping to conclusions.  There will be
  modifications.  You will probably find that you'll be able to limit
  outgoing bittorrent and block spam from botnetted machines, block
  illegal activity, etc.  How do you determine illegal bittorrent
  (uploading of copyrighted content, etc.) from legal  (uploading of GNU
  licensed open source)?   There lies the big question.
 
  I think they're saying things like Time-Warner can't prioritize CNN
  (which is owned by Time, Inc.) over MSNBC or Youtube over hulu, etc.  I
  still say they should allow you to prioritize VOIP over everything else.
  IMHO
 
  --Curtis
 
 
  Jerry Richardson wrote:
   I can't agree more.
  
   Blocking (0 bits passed) is constitutionally wrong IMO.  Since I can
 no
  longer distinguish legal traffic from illegal traffic I have to allow it
  all.
  
   Shaping/Throttling/Caps is not only 100% within my rights, but as an
 ISP
  is prudent and a critical part of my business model and I would win that
  fight in court every time.
  
   We stopped selling residential service two years ago - they use more,
 pay
  less, and need the most support - however it's clear that this has
 hampered
  growth.
  
   I am planning to implement metered billing on our network. The plan is
 to
  determine the traffic utilization of 95% of our customers in each
 service
  tier and set that as the baseline. Moving forward light users will pay
 less
  and heavy users will pay more. It's the only way I can think of to
 survive
  and be fair.
  
   Jerry Richardson
   airCloud Communications.
  
   From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
 On
  Behalf Of Jack Unger
   Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:08 AM
   To: WISPA General List
   Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
  
   Hi John,
  
   I appreciate hearing your thoughts and I believe that I understand the
  ISP concerns that new regulations may force ISPs to pass large or
 unlimited
  amounts of traffic to the detriment of 1) other ISP customers

Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

2009-09-22 Thread Clint Ricker
Exactly.  And, it works better all around since you deliver an ideal
experience (including access to ALL internet applications) to your ideal
customers.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote:

 So what I think you're saying, we should restrict the user based on a
 predetermined usage limit then kick the throttling in for the entire
 connection, not per app.  This is okay.  Then the users who hit it once in
 awhile will never reach the bandwidth abuse level and would sail right on
 through as happy customers.  And all of that sounds perfectly doable and as
 reasonable and fair as it can get.

 Bob-


 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Clint Ricker
 Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:55 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

 The key words in the FCC quote is users, not applications.

 They aren't restricting your ability to block or degrade IP address
 162.21.25.200 because that IP address is generating spam or running up
 terabytes of traffic a month when you only have a DSL backhaul.

 They are trying to restrict your ability to say my heaviest users all use
 bit torrent, so I'm going to block bit torrent.

 In other words, shape on users, not on user actionsblock/restrict the
 heaviest users, not the heaviest applications.

 This doesn't really change anything for WISPs, since it has the same effect
 and is really a better approach in any case.  It lets you give the ideal
 experience for ALL applications to your ideal customers.  And you can
 directly target your heaviest users.  This is a lot better than potentially
 losing good customers (ie low bandwidht customers) because they can't get
 bit torrent to work when they try to use it twice a month.

 -Clint Ricker




 On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Robert West
 robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote:

  Okay.  Isn't this what most of us already do in our Terms Of Service
  notice?
  So if it's just a matter of notification then the issue would be void on
  day
  one as far as traffic shaping is concerned.  Am I right on my
 understanding
  of this?
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
  Behalf Of Curtis Maurand
  Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 8:58 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
 
  I just read the fifth rule in the speech and I quote it below and the
  remarks made by Mr. Genachowski:
 
 
 Fifth Principle of Non-Discrimination
 
 The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that
 broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet
 content or applications.
 
  This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their
  networks, or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over
  others in the connection to subscribers' homes. Nor can they disfavor an
  Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered
  by that broadband provider. The Internet must continue to allow users to
  decide what content and applications succeed.
 
  This principle will not prevent broadband providers from reasonably
  managing their networks. During periods of network congestion, for
  example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy
  users do not crowd out everyone else. And this principle will not
  constrain efforts to ensure a safe, secure, and spam-free Internet
  experience, or to enforce the law. It is vital that illegal conduct be
  curtailed on the Internet. As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing,
  open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and
  applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of
  copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. The
  enforcement of copyright and other laws and the obligations of network
  openness can and must co-exist.
 
  I also recognize that there may be benefits to innovation and investment
  of broadband providers offering managed services in limited
  circumstances. These services are different than traditional broadband
  Internet access, and some have argued they should be analyzed under a
  different framework. I believe such services can supplement -- but must
  not supplant -- free and open Internet access, and that we must ensure
  that ample bandwidth exists for all Internet users and innovators. In
  the rulemaking process I will discuss in a moment, we will carefully
  consider how to approach the question of managed services in a way that
  maximizes the innovation and investment necessary for a robust and
  thriving Internet.
 
  The sixth rule just says that if you're going to throttle things like
  peer to peer, you're going to have to notify your users before you do it.
 
  Reads just I thought it would.  It doesn't prevent you from throttling
  bittorrent uploaders, etc.  Everyone should read

Re: [WISPA] ISP billing/management software.

2009-03-23 Thread Clint Ricker
Platypus is probably the best of the lot.  Good support, very easy to
self-extend in terms of auto-provisioning, very powerful, and good
interface.  Also includes helpdesk / etc... so it's a single, well
integrated package.  Very stable and reliable as well.




On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Paul Kralovec 
pkralo...@unpluggedcities.com wrote:

 One of the big advantages of Platypus and Wombat is it allows you to
 maintain separate client information. We provide helpdesk support, billing
 and payment processing services to other ISPs and city networks. Each
 account requires detail accounting for their customers.

 Tucows' products were the only one we could find that would handle this
 easily and without special programming.



 Paul D. Kralovec

 President

 Unplugged Cities, LLC

 511 11th Ave. S

 Suite 241

 Minneapolis, MN 55415



 W: 763-235-3001

 F:  763-647-7998

 C:  952-270-9107

 www.unpluggedcities.com


 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Jason Hensley
 Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:38 AM
 To: 'WISPA General List'
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] ISP billing/management software.

 Use it for both, as well as hosting, email only, fiber customers, etc.
  Wish
 I had a way to integrate it for my computer sales and repair customers, but
 I haven't figured out a good way to do that yet without making Platypus my
 primary billing system for all of that as well, which I really don't want
 to
 do.



 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of George Rogato
 Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:30 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] ISP billing/management software.



 Jason Hensley wrote:
 easy integration with Wombat (help-desk that we integrated a few
  months ago - love it too)

 Jason

 Do you use Wombat for dialup or wireless subs?

 I'm curious because I was going to add wombat a few years ago but held off,
 Lately I was considering checking out wombat to see if it would be a
 benefit, but I couldn't find enough info on it.

 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/




 
 
 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] ARTICLE - What's the U.S. Doing Wrong with Broadband ?

2009-03-15 Thread Clint Ricker
Want to truly take nothing?  Seriously?

The mere existence of the Internet is due to government funding.  The wires
that connect your little corner of Oregon to the great wide world?  Probably
wouldn't have happened without government subsidies.  The same is true
around the world.  A lot of the research that drives the technology getting
your bits across the wire...hmmm...government funding, as well.

You're in the wrong industry to invent a moral highroad about government
subsidisations.  Telecomm is considered a utility, and utilities will always
be subsidised by governments.  Always have been, and always will be.




On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 5:29 PM, rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:

 The fact is, the only things we're doing wrong, is allowing too much
 subsidy, too many barriers to entry into the business, and too much tax
 money to be gobbled up.

 In all of these countries with so-called great broadband, how much is
 ACTUALLY spent by the consumers and taxpayers?   Nobody knows.   I will
 guarantee you it is WELL MORE than anyone pays here.No, not the price
 of
 subsidized services, the total spending divided by users and taxpayers.


 What is the actual return on broadband?I can tell you honestly,  that
 with the exception of a small handful of my customers, the only return is
 time saved, with no monetary returns.For a few, it does have financial
 implications, and they do earn or save money.I'd say it was under 10%.
 Now, that's RESIDENTIAL customers.Business customers have a far
 different viewpoint... And they often pay well more than residential
 service
 prices to get SLA's, etc.

 Subsidizing the residential users with taxpayers is both economically
 wrong,
 and just plain common sense wrong.

 But as far as the article goes..  We need MORE free market and less
 interference.   Broadband would spread faster, not slower.   And be more,
 not less, competitive.

 But we have to recognize some things...  There are historically created
 monopolies, and there are current monopolies, and these monopolies exist
 due
 to force of law.   If there's anything that's held up broadband, it's these
 monopolies.

 Local and state laws often create monopolies by placing huge impediments to
 new startups, or wireless deployments, and often absolutely and totally
 forbid WIRED competition for phone and cable operators by offering
 exclusive
 franchises.   The number of competitive wired phone operators is nil, for
 all practical purposes, for a lot of reasons.   Yet, we have no end in
 sight
 of the wireless phone guys competing for your dollar.

 In rural America, far too much land is governmentally owned, and is the
 single largest obstacle to wireless deployments.   Eastern Oregon, for
 instance is hugely Federal, some state, and tiny spots of private land.
 Trying to use federal or state land is just simply not feasible, especially
 if you're provider #2 for a town of 2000 people and you're trying to be
 cost
 competitive.   And Congress can't seem to figure out that handing out
 grants
 to people who are experts at milking the sow in DC isn't cost effective or
 in any other way effective.   Those who can, do, those who can't, get
 grants
 or loans.   Not universally, but at least around here, that's the case.

 Here is Eastern Oregon, we have one company that invested minimal money of
 their own, but bilked the state for millions, and uses state money (mine,
 no
 less) to deploy fiber to compete with non subsidized WISP's and other
 ISP's.
 And, since their contract is written in a certain way, they use the LEAST
 cost effective means of reaching people.   They get paid by the state to
 waste money, IMO.   And are they friendly to being cooperative iwth other
 ISP's?   Hell no.

 Every time you offer public subsidy, you simply invite the taxpayers to get
 screwed endlessly.

 And we're ALL taxpayers.

 If you want to lobby DC and get my support, then the following words and
 this idea will NEVER surface in what you say... Give us money from the
 taxpayers.If you want to talk tax breaks,  if you want to talk legal
 classifications, if you want to talk about barriers to services, etc,
 etc...
 by all means, do so... but you lose me everytime you say we need money.
 If you can't make the business case for it without subsidy or grants, IT
 SHOULD NOT BE DONE.   Period.

 And those poor whiny souls who bellyache about the position we hold in
 broadband penetration can have endless bleeding ulcers over it,  they have
 no point worth considering.

 As I've said before... lots of people here are arguing that since it's
 going to be spent, get your share.   NO!

 If it has to start somewhere, it starts with me.  I take nothing.  Zilch.
 Never.  Ever.   Just do the right thing.  Eventually, doing the right thing
 will be popular and can be sold to the saps in DC.   But it has to start
 somewhere.   Even if it starts AND ENDS with me...  I'm doing the right
 thing, period.





 

Re: [WISPA] Anyone on the east cost need a 100' ladder truck?

2009-02-25 Thread Clint Ricker
Insurance rates would depend on how often you use the sirens when late  
to an appointment.

-Clint Ricker

On Feb 25, 2009, at 12:53 AM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote:

 Wouldnt that be fun! But, I can only imagine what the insurance  
 would run.
 -RickG

 On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.com 
 wrote:

 Less than $5k right now!


 http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/SEAGRAVE-WR-07DF-ONLY-18-049-MILES-TURBO-DIESEL_W0QQitemZ260366134160QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCommercial_Trucks?hash=item260366134160_trksid=p4506.c0.m245_trkparms=72%3A727%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318

 marlon




 --- 
 --- 
 --- 
 --- 
 
 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 does this mean to wisps?

2009-02-20 Thread Clint Ricker
I don't know the specifics of the Charter bankruptcy, but I've been
working in telecom long enough to know that most traditional service
providers do have to take on massive amounts of long-term debt to
build out their infrastructure.  Buildout of wireline networks is very
capital intensive, involves large long-term loans, and does have a lot
longer ROI than say, a wireless AP (most independent wisps build their
ROI around months rather than years).  On the other hand, the
infrastructure holds its value a lot longer (deployed cable HFC will
be commercially viable a lot longer than the current generation of
PTMP radios, deployed GPON FTTN even more so (all assuming some
swapouts of gear at the CO / headend every few years).

Debt is necessary part of most telecom buildout, and lenders knowingly
assume some of the risk in return for interest on their loans.  The
difference between Charter failing and other telco's / cable companies
succeeding isn't business model per-se (they all have, at some
level, the same business model) but is more likely the mundane issues
that usually lead to business success or failure -- execution, etc...

-Clint Ricker




On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.com 
wrote:
 Wish I could just write off my debt and still be in business.

 This kind of thing is just wrong.

 Go so far in debt that there's no way out.  Work off of a bad business
 model.  Then stick everyone else with the bill and walk away in a few years
 totally in the clear.

 it's BS
 marlon

 - Original Message -
 From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 8:05 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] What does this mean to wisps?


 Probably nothing, other than Charter may be more nimble in the future
 without all of that burden.


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



 --
 From: George Rogato wi...@oregonfast.net
 Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 10:02 AM
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: [WISPA] What does this mean to wisps?

 Charter is set to file bankruptcy protection on or before April 1 as
 part of a financial restructuring to reduce its debt by $8bn.

 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/245062c2-f93d-11dd-90c1-77b07658.html?referrer_id=yahoofinanceft_ref=yahoo1segid=03058nclick_check=1



 
 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/




-- 
Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies
800.783.5753



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] Push to install Mobile Broadband on laptops

2008-10-01 Thread Clint Ricker
Tom,
The price structure of WiMax gear is, as you noted, structured such that the
cost of the service provider gear is quite expensive (compared to the
typical gear that most WISPs use).

I disagree with your assessment, though, that this is designed as some sort
of protectionist system to keep little players out of the market.  Major
service providers have typically followed a model where they will invest
very heavily in their core infrastructure (headend / central office / data
center / cell tower / whatever) if it means that it will save them money on
the CPE.  They then market the hell out of the product to try to get the
density such that the infrastructure buildout cost is relatively small on a
per-customer basis.

Most WISPs don't ever get high penetration; they also don't, in my
experience, focus as much on the marketing necessary to acheive any real
penetration.  So, they are able to (forced to) shift the cost more on the
customer side.  If you are able to achieve the market penetration, then 15K
(or much more even) for the AP is very cheap if you are able to cut down on
or even eliminate engineered CPE deployments, truck rolls, and cut the CPE
costs.  Of course, if you don't acheive the density, then you're pretty much
screwed--no limping by on a handful of customers per tower when your
up-front investment is 6 figures...

Also, mosts WISPs sort of turn the system on the head by leveraging what is
effectively repurposed LAN equipment (ie 802.11a/b/g chipsets) as service
provider technology, so they can take advantage of the economies of scale
for on the chipset side.  When you think about traditional major service
provider gear, there's often only a few tens, hundreds or thousands of units
of the technology in production (or often even less), so there's very little
economy of scale involved, even by the largest of manufacturers.

 Clint Ricker
-Kentnis Technologies








On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:

 
 The only idea that comes to my mind is for professionally-operated small
 operators to somehow partner with the least established/most threatened
 cellular operator which may be Sprint/Clearwire. If
 professionally-operated small operators could somehow allow their
 existing tower locations to be overlaid with a licensed WiMAX
 deployment for example, in return for a chance to be both a sales agent
 and to receive a share of the revenue then it could work for all parties.

 That would assume that the WISPs owned their towers or had exclusive
 control
 of them, or that WISP tower/networks met the equivellent spec required by
 Sprint/Clearwire vision.  (There becomes QOS guarantee, support issues, and
 reputation issues,  that could outweight revenue from WISP partnerships).
 I'd argue most WISPs lease, and likely were not able to lease all
 spectrum
 rights. If Sprint/Clear wants a WISP's tower, they'll just buy space on it
 themselves.

 In order to make a deal with a SprintClearwire, it requires having an asset
 that Clearwire/Sprint needs, that they can't other wise get. Sometimes
 tower
 space can be the asset, if valuable space under a pre-existing good
 contract.  Sometimes its the anonymousness that allows a small provider to
 get a better deal from a leasor than a large funded company that has the
 ability to pay up large.

 But personally, my feeling is the best option is for WISPs to utilize a
 widely accepted standards based technology, for their own architecture, so
 they don;t have to partner with goliath Cell companies.  It would be great
 if Whitespace utilized a standardized technology, IF personal portable and
 mobile devices are allowed in the band.

 Wimax cards will get built-in to laptops, not only because Intel's
 investment, but because there will be an acconomy of scale to justify it.
 To get in on the game, WISPs would have to buy into WiMax.
 As long as WiMax gear is $15k a AP sector, it won't get traction from
 WISPs.
 Its chasing a dream that won;t materialize.
 This is not an accident. I believe its purposeful to keep Wimax proces high
 and out of the reach of small operators. Its what allows Wimax to be a
 special club technology that only the big boys can play in.  The best
 thing taht WISPs can do to get in, is to lobby their manufacturers to make
 Wimax APs that are affordable for WISPs.  There would then be no need to
 partner, we'd just piggy back on the fact that laptop already had embedded
 WiMax cards in them.

 The other hope is standards like 802.22, or 802.11y, or 802.16h, that are
 standards in the making.

 As much as I hate bias to a proprietary protocol that is called a
 standard, it is really the only way to get support from laptop and mobile
 manufacturers, without paying for that support ourselves.

 My personal opinion is the last thing a WISP would want to do is partner
 with a Clearwire, to fund their competitor, until such time that the
 Sprint/Clearwires of the world realized the value to invest in small

Re: [WISPA] Preventing backwards router problems

2008-09-04 Thread Clint Ricker
Andrew, Really, you're asking the wrong question: the problem isn't that you
need to filter out a rogue DHCP server as much as it is poor separation
between customers.  The DHCP server is a symptom of a larger problem of
having all the customers on the same layer 2 broadcast domain.  Even if you
fix the DHCP problem with filtering, you still have some pretty big
security issues here.

What you need is for a means for all traffic from one customer to be
separate from the other customers, below are some methods for doing that
(they aren't necessarily either/or) solutions:
- Many APs have client isolation, which keeps traffic from one client going
to another.  Some switches have this as well.
- Doing a routed (as opposed to a bridged) network solves this problem.
 Generally is easier to troubleshoot, as well
- PPPoE or similar between the customer premise and your network core

Thanks,
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies












On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Canopy NAT and bootP filtering works like a champ to stop the mistake from
 causing problems upstream.

 - Original Message -
 From: Charles Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:49 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Preventing backwards router problems


  Andrew Niemantsverdriet wrote:
  On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Charles Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  wrote:
 
  Andrew Niemantsverdriet wrote:
 
  How to I prevent SOHO routers from handing out bogus DHCP information
  when they are plugged in backwards?
 
 
  Filter them upstream?
 
 
 
  How would I filter upstream? All clients go into a switch so I would
  have to filter at the switch level, what switches provide this?
 
 
  So what exactly did you mean by plugged in backwards? The WAN port
  instead of the LAN port?
  Can you explain your architecture  a bit?
 
 
 
 
  This was more of a WISP dashboard program. The captive portal stuff
  was secondary the main part of the program was more of an access
  controller. It allowed the admin to control IP's maintain MAC ACL's
 
 
  Ah. Well check out ZeroShell for this. Its a very cool distro. Also
  check out Untangle.
 
  --
  Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059
  http://charlesnw.blogspot.com
  CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project
 
 
 
 
 
  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] Network Monitor

2008-08-01 Thread Clint Ricker
I've never used the DUDE, and probably won't because I generally go
out of my way to avoid non-browser based multi-user applications.
Somewhat of a philosophical bias, but avoids installation / platform /
software / random-networking considerations / security hassles.

I highly recommend OpenNMS as well.  It's easier to maintain than
nagios / cacti, is web based and open source, and provides full
monitoring / trending / alarming.  Very, very powerful, very scalable,
and has a lot of flexibility / functionality that you won't find in
other places.  It does really good auto discovery and so forth.  It
also has some very powerful report generation tools if you need to
demonstrate SLA compliance, etc.  Mostly web-based, although has some
text backend configuration stuff if you really want to do some
tweaking / customization.

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies






On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 9:25 PM, rabbtux rabbtux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I used  the cacti/nagios combo for years, but in Feb I switched to OpenNMS.
 It was tricky to get setup, and the folks on their IRC were invaluable!  Now
 it auto scans multiple ip networks and ranges I specify every 4 hours and
 sends me a txt msg each time I add customers.  For all the normal stuff it
 runs every 5 minutes and produces graphs for not just ping but 'smoke ping',
 http, dns, ssh, and other commonly discovered ports.  It also collects a
 good bit of snmp data and graphs it.  The time invested and IRC questions
 this last Feb are paying off in a sweet way now.  My system looks at a
 couple hundred interfaces and a total of about a thousand ports/graphs for
 the network.  Just My 2 cents worth.

 On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:

 The Wireless Connections app is actually based on Cricket, not Cacti.
 Huge difference there...

 I have released Alvarion templates for the Cacti system. They are
 available from the Cacti forums at:
 http://forums.cacti.net/viewtopic.php?t=18328

 We also run the Nagios/Cacti combo. I have quite a few years of Nagios
 experience behind me if anyone needs some guidance getting things going.
 We currently have 631 hosts and 4,382 services being checked every 2
 minutes or so on Nagios with average service check latency of 3.06
 seconds

 Yea, it's pretty sweet :P


 Adam Kennedy
 Senior Network Administrator
 Cyberlink Technologies, Inc.
 Phone: 888-293-3693
 Fax: 574-855-5761

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of John Rock
 Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:26 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Monitor

 Check our free application that initiates Cacti graphs and config files
 can
 easilly be made and/or updated to adapt to about any SNMP device.
 All we ask is that you buy all your gear from us...
 Kidding of course. The system is a bit dated but we can help adapt it to

 your needs. We also have a free support email list to get your questions

 answered.

 Software:
 http://www.wirelessconnections.net/index.php?option=com_docmantask=doc_
 downloadgid=23Itemid=58http://www.wirelessconnections.net/index.php?option=com_docmantask=doc_downloadgid=23Itemid=58

 RTFM:
 http://www.wirelessconnections.net/index.php?option=com_docmantask=doc_
 downloadgid=22Itemid=58http://www.wirelessconnections.net/index.php?option=com_docmantask=doc_downloadgid=22Itemid=58

 Copy and paste the entire links if the don't work correctly

 Thanks,

 John Rock
 Wireless Connections
 Director of Operations - Senior Engineer
 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: Carl Shivers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 5:02 PM
 Subject: [WISPA] Network Monitor


  We are looking for Network monitoring software. We have been using
 Solar
  Winds, but they want another $1400 to upgrade. Any suggestions?
 
 
 
 
 
 
  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] Network Monitor

2008-08-01 Thread Clint Ricker
Also, just a note that I forgot to mention

OpenNMS also handles SNMP traps very well and with little
configuration, something that is a weakness in a lot of the free/open
source applications which either simply don't or require some
cumbersome configuration (like Nagios).

-Clint





On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I've never used the DUDE, and probably won't because I generally go
 out of my way to avoid non-browser based multi-user applications.
 Somewhat of a philosophical bias, but avoids installation / platform /
 software / random-networking considerations / security hassles.

 I highly recommend OpenNMS as well.  It's easier to maintain than
 nagios / cacti, is web based and open source, and provides full
 monitoring / trending / alarming.  Very, very powerful, very scalable,
 and has a lot of flexibility / functionality that you won't find in
 other places.  It does really good auto discovery and so forth.  It
 also has some very powerful report generation tools if you need to
 demonstrate SLA compliance, etc.  Mostly web-based, although has some
 text backend configuration stuff if you really want to do some
 tweaking / customization.

 -Clint Ricker
 Kentnis Technologies






 On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 9:25 PM, rabbtux rabbtux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I used  the cacti/nagios combo for years, but in Feb I switched to OpenNMS.
 It was tricky to get setup, and the folks on their IRC were invaluable!  Now
 it auto scans multiple ip networks and ranges I specify every 4 hours and
 sends me a txt msg each time I add customers.  For all the normal stuff it
 runs every 5 minutes and produces graphs for not just ping but 'smoke ping',
 http, dns, ssh, and other commonly discovered ports.  It also collects a
 good bit of snmp data and graphs it.  The time invested and IRC questions
 this last Feb are paying off in a sweet way now.  My system looks at a
 couple hundred interfaces and a total of about a thousand ports/graphs for
 the network.  Just My 2 cents worth.

 On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:

 The Wireless Connections app is actually based on Cricket, not Cacti.
 Huge difference there...

 I have released Alvarion templates for the Cacti system. They are
 available from the Cacti forums at:
 http://forums.cacti.net/viewtopic.php?t=18328

 We also run the Nagios/Cacti combo. I have quite a few years of Nagios
 experience behind me if anyone needs some guidance getting things going.
 We currently have 631 hosts and 4,382 services being checked every 2
 minutes or so on Nagios with average service check latency of 3.06
 seconds

 Yea, it's pretty sweet :P


 Adam Kennedy
 Senior Network Administrator
 Cyberlink Technologies, Inc.
 Phone: 888-293-3693
 Fax: 574-855-5761

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of John Rock
 Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:26 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Monitor

 Check our free application that initiates Cacti graphs and config files
 can
 easilly be made and/or updated to adapt to about any SNMP device.
 All we ask is that you buy all your gear from us...
 Kidding of course. The system is a bit dated but we can help adapt it to

 your needs. We also have a free support email list to get your questions

 answered.

 Software:
 http://www.wirelessconnections.net/index.php?option=com_docmantask=doc_
 downloadgid=23Itemid=58http://www.wirelessconnections.net/index.php?option=com_docmantask=doc_downloadgid=23Itemid=58

 RTFM:
 http://www.wirelessconnections.net/index.php?option=com_docmantask=doc_
 downloadgid=22Itemid=58http://www.wirelessconnections.net/index.php?option=com_docmantask=doc_downloadgid=22Itemid=58

 Copy and paste the entire links if the don't work correctly

 Thanks,

 John Rock
 Wireless Connections
 Director of Operations - Senior Engineer
 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: Carl Shivers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 5:02 PM
 Subject: [WISPA] Network Monitor


  We are looking for Network monitoring software. We have been using
 Solar
  Winds, but they want another $1400 to upgrade. Any suggestions?
 
 
 
 
 
 
  WISPA Wants

Re: [WISPA] multiple gateway question in mesh scenario

2008-06-15 Thread Clint Ricker
I can't think of a reason why anyone would deploy a layer 2 mesh with  
an Ethernet based medium (which wifi inherently is).  Conventional  
wisdom in large scale sp architecture is to do anything of any size or  
complexity in layer 3.  Layer 2 is really bad at scalability and  
really hard to troubleshoot compared to layer 3 as layer 2 routing  
is inherently quite dumb.

If you need l2 functionality or protocol agnostic (although the latter  
is more of an academic feature than a practical benefit), then go l3  
and tunnel.  Most l2 services provided by service providers are, in  
the end, tunneled over a layer 3 infrastructure.  Scalabiity and  
stability are the 2 concerns of a service provider, and both are very  
weak at layer 2 of any size..

-Clint Ricker

On Jun 15, 2008, at 21:00, Matt Hardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 20:52 -0400, Matt Hardy wrote:

 Yes a layer 2 mesh is protocol dependent, so you're stuck to IP  
 traffic
 only.



 Oops... i mean, Layer 3 is protocol dependent :)



 Also, when using a layer 3 mesh, roaming and convergence time can  
 also
 increase (slowing things down) as when things move around, extra  
 things
 have to happen... layer 3 stuff... OLSR tables updated, IPs  
 updated, ARP
 entries updated, etc

 For instance, if a laptop migrates from one mesh AP to a different  
 mesh
 AP in L3, they will be assigned an IP in a different subnet, while  
 with
 a Layer 2 mesh, they can use the same IP.

 -Matt

 On Sat, 2008-06-14 at 10:08 -0700, Charles N Wyble wrote:

 Rogelio wrote:
 Matt Hardy wrote:

 I guess one question would be is it a Layer 2 or Layer 3 me 
 sh? That
 would influence what options you have.


 Good question.  Thus far, I've only played with layer 2 meshes.
 (MobileIP is, I believe, a layer 3 one, right?)


 Yes that is correct.

 (Layer 2 meshes, I have heard from others, are better, but I'm  
 not
 exactly sure why this is the case, to be honest.)


 Well. It's completely transparent and application/protocol  
 independent.

 Charles



 --- 
 --- 
 --- 
 --- 
 
 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] Future

2008-04-23 Thread Clint Ricker
Travis,
Just a few notes on the economics of this (and, why I think single
play providers are in trouble):

The ARPU for triple play is generally considerably above $100 per
month, most figures put this around $160 per month on an industry
basis.  Typically, churn is considerably lower as well for triple play
customers.  A triple play customer generating $160 per month returns
almost $20,000 in 10 years.  But, given that triple play leverages the
same network, you have 3-4 times the revenue to subsidize a common
network buildout.  That is hard to compete with.

Yes, you do have churn and significantly less than 100%
penetration--people go to other offerings.  But, the economic
viability is still very solid.

-Clint







Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  A couple quick things:

  (1) You don't necessarily have them for life. People can change to DISH and
 a wireless provider and do VoIP over that. Especially if they can save
 $5/month, a lot of people will change. DISH is $35/month for decent
 programming. Wireless is another $40/month and VoIP can be had for
 $20/month.

  (2) It looks good with those numbers, but realistically you have costs way
 above just the install. On a $100/month customer how much gross profit do
 you actually make after buying bandwidth, transport, TV channels, VoIP
 service, etc. I really have no idea, so I am asking. Do you make $20 gross?
 $1,500 / $20 = 75 months breakeven and this doesn't include support costs,
 etc.

  Travis
  Microserv



  Chuck McCown wrote:
  FTTH ONT pricing (the unit on the house) keeps falling. They are about $400
 now.
 You can put in fiber for $1-2/foot (if you have a clear ROW).
 The CO end is about $50K/terminal that is capable of serving thousands.
 I don't know what the pro-rata single fiber COT card is, but I think they
 are are around $2K/port with each port serving 32 on a PON.
 So, if the plowing is good and the ROWs are clear and free, you can probably
 get a customer installed (in a fairly dense surburban area) for less than
 $1500 each.
 Triple play for $100/month. And you have them for life.
 Of course this assumes you build it yourself and you already have a NOC and
 you already have access to and IPTV stream etc.
 But it is doable. There is a business case for building such a system.
 Main thing is to do it before the ILEC/RBOC does it.

 - Original Message -
 From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:39 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Future




  Well Mike, the way I see it is that the sky has been falling my entire
 time
 as an ISP (over a decade now).

 WiMax is still a joke in the market place.

 3G is too slow and too expensive.

 700 is not deployed in any level that matters and doesn't look like it
 will
 be any time soon.

 Cable is in trouble because they are dying under the load of the high end
 users they they keep getting. They need all of the capacity they can come
 up with for HDTV channels but broadband is taking up too much space on the
 coax. They also JUST put in their networks. The big companies aren't
 structured to reinvest in new hardware every few years. I'd say that they
 will continue to grow and continue to piss off their base. I'm not
 worried
 about cable.

 As for ATT and Verizon? People already hate the service and prices they
 have, so far I can sell against them.

 Fiber is cool, I have FTTH customers. But man is it expensive! There's
 just no way to ever make the investment back at today's pricing levels.
 marlon

 - Original Message -
 From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 5:44 PM
 Subject: [WISPA] Future




  What do you see as the future of our industry over the next 5 years?

 ATT is expanding U-Verse (will this be available outside of town?)
 Verizon is expanding FiOS (will this be available outside of town?)
 Cable will be using DOCSIS 3
 3G will gain more steam
 WiMAX will have larger and larger shares of the market
 700 MHz will be in use possibly for data communications by the big guys


 My banker asked me, so I figured I'd see what other's opinions are.

 My thought is that the big guys mentioned above will continue to avoid
 the
 niche that we currently serve and we'll be able to provide better
 services
 with more spectrum (5.4 GHz, additional 2.5 GHz, 3.6 GHz, possibly TV
 white spaces) and WiMAX.


 --
 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/


 

Re: [WISPA] Feasibility of a non-profit WISP

2008-04-06 Thread Clint Ricker
 a path back to the
Internet.

WDS?  Don't do it.  It is a way of doing mesh, but it doesn't work
well at all--not scalable at all and horrible performance.

Clint Ricker
-Kentnis Technologies










On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Japhy Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I've gotten a couple private responses to this thread, so I'd like to
  throw out a few more things:

  The overwhelming advice though, seems to be to avoid mesh.  ( Also,
  Tony Morella of demarctech pointed out that I misunderstood the olsrd
  literature.. sheesh. )

  So, I'm basically working in a pretty dense, suburban/urban area,
  sitting in a valley.  From where I'm typing, I've basically got clear
  LoS to the major areas I'm trying to cover, maybe 20 square miles.  My
  logic was that to provide consistent coverage over all of it, I'd need
  3 or 4 overlapping APs.. which seems ideal for a mesh setup.

  If I'm using a dual radio backhaul/AP setup, am I going to get
  interference between the units?

  What's the difference between WDS and mesh?

  A few people have mentioned that the standard for free access is to
  have users pass through a portal with some sort of legal disclaimer.
  Is there actually any legal precedent for suing a hotspot provider
  over the actions of a user?  I guess I'm just being naive, but that
  seems.. silly.

  Regarding CALEA - I understand recording VoIP for the authorities, but
  what are your responsibilities before you receive s request for that?
  Just to have the tools in place?

  A lot of people mention using DSL instead of a T1.  There is a very
  large international corporation headquartered here, renting their
  internet T1s for $20/mo (!!!).  Most likely, as a service to the
  community, they'll be able to negotiate a similar price for me.  At a
  rate that low, it just makes a lot of sense, but I am getting quotes
  from the DSL providers.


  On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Chuck McCown - 2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   My question for you is why?  100 users are enough to be a headache and 
 use
up all your free time but not enough to even pay you for your time or
investment.

  (Did I mention I'm writing a grant proposal for this?  Cue the strings :)

  It's not really about money.  As a state, Michigan is fighting to keep
  people from moving away, and as a city Benton Harbor is struggling to
  retain or attract the kind of talented people that can sustain some
  sort of economy.  In the meantime, most of our citizens are
  poor/unemployed and uneducated.  Providing internet access is a good
  way (imho) to at least open some doors for them, and put another
  bullet point in the list of reasons to come visit/live.


  Anyhow, thanks a ton for putting up with stupid questions.  The advice
  from this list is invaluable.

  Japhy




  
- Original Message -
From: Japhy Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 5:44 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Feasibility of a non-profit WISP
  
  
 Hi all-

 I'm finishing up a grant proposal to build a wireless network for a
 smallish (2 sq. mile) neighborhood.  My only real experience is having
 read this mailing list for a year or so, and independently researching
 via the internet, so I'm hoping some of you veterans can offer some
 insight before I get in too deep!

 The basic, mile-high premise is to build a 2.4ghz mesh network, using
 Linux, or at least Open Source Software, wherever possible.  I'm
 pretty comfy with Linux, and it seems like the route a non-profit
 should take.

 Since the idea is to be providing access not only to locals, but also
 to people visiting (it's a mixed commercial/residential area),
 sticking to the 802.11b/g protocol seems like a good way to make sure
 strangers can get on with whatever gear they've already got.

 Specifically, I'm looking at gear that would run olsrd
 (http://olsr.org); more specifically, demarctech.com's RWR HPG units
 (https://www.demarctech.com/products/reliawave-rwr/rwr-hpg-15a.htm).

 The business model is to offer capped speeds for free, and uncapped
 speeds to subscribers.  So, presumably I'm going to need to do some
 traffic shaping.

 the RWR unit lists both OLSRD Mesh  and Bi-Directional Traffic
 Shaping with QoS (VoIP) via IP or MAC , so it would seem to be ideal!
 But how do those features play together?  Can I assume that the unit
 is running some sort of *nix with a shell?  More importantly, am I
 going to be able to script something that will link the traffic shaper
 with a database of MAC Addresses?  (Or script something to assign IP
 address subgroups based on MAC!)

 Anybody ever done this before, or have a better solution for a tiered
 network?

 I'm estimating that we'll have 100 users tops.  A while back I looked
 up ratios and figured that a T1

Re: [WISPA] For those using IPTrack

2008-04-04 Thread Clint Ricker
This error generally comes from a variable being used in the regex
(pattern matching) in the script isn't set for whatever reason.  It's
usually fairly simple to track down; you could probably pay someone
who knows perl to knock this out in an hour or so or track down the
variable yourself if you're comfortable with that sort of thing.

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 8:52 PM, rabbtux rabbtux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 did you ever get this resolved?



  On Wed, Jan 9, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Andrew Niemantsverdriet
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   I am trying a new install of IPTrack. I have my router all set up and
sending NetFlow data (verified by tcpdump and NTOP) however when I try
to start IPTrack I get these errors:
Use of uninitialized value in pattern match (m//) at
/usr/src/iptrack/iptrack_capture.pl line 198.
Use of uninitialized value in pattern match (m//) at
/usr/src/iptrack/iptrack_capture.pl line 205.
  
They flood my terminal, I am guessing they happen every time flow data
is received. Has anybody else experienced such problems? What did you
do to get around them? I tried contacting the developer but have been
unsuccessful. The IPTrack host is a CentOS 5 box. I am wondering if
the Perl version is causing conflicts.
  
Any help? Or ideas on where to get help?
  
Thanks,
 _
/-\ ndrew
  
  

 
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] Comcast will also be offering up to 50 Mbps

2008-04-04 Thread Clint Ricker
Bandwidth management is a tricky topic, very nuanced, and varies from
provider to provider.  In someways, despite some of the net neutrality
discussions focusing around disclosure, this may end up becoming a bit
of a secret sauce because it is so heavily tied into quality
perception.  In the end, everyone has to throttle--pre-emptively or
not at least some of the time; who/how/when makes all the difference.

If I read between the lines of a lot of what's going on in the
industry, I see that most of the bandwidth management is focused
around getting the best performance for the best 90%-95%.  The fact
that cable msos will aggressively throttle some customers in some
situations in the end doesn't matter--they can leverage the expanded
capacity to give a very good experience to the bulk of their
subscribers that can be hard to recreate using much lower capacity
connections.  And, in the end, it's not like you actually want the
5-10% as customers anyway, since they are typically unprofitable...
By and large, their bandwidth management has better: most of the major
providers do provide a pretty good experience if you're not in the
edge of their model.

The small companies will typically be a lot less refined in this
process, so it will likely impact a lot higher percentage of their
customers.

Clint Ricker
-Kentnis Technologies

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 1:31 AM, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Just want to point out a couple things...

  up to 50 Mbps means anywhere from 0 to 50... and

  The local cable company has automatic throttling even on downloads. One
  customer said he was downloading a video driver (150MB file) and it
  started at 3Mbps and by the end was down to 256k. His connection stayed
  at 256k for about another 2 hours. They are capping people even when
  they say up to xx speeds.

  Travis
  Microserv



  George Rogato wrote:
   Comcast will also be offering up to 50 Mbps for downloading, or
   receiving, files. Uploading, or sending, files will be at up to 5 Mbps.
   The monthly $150 price is available only to residential customers; small
   businesses will have to pay $200 for a package that includes additional
   technical support and security software.
  
   The existing high-end tier costs $53. Maximum upload speeds for those
   customers will automatically increase to 2 Mbps, more than doubling the
   current limits. Downloads will remain at up to 8 Mbps. Maximum upload
   speeds for the basic, $43 tier will nearly triple to 1 Mbps, while
   downloads will remain capped at 6 Mbps.
  
   Cablevision Systems Corp. already offers a 50 Mbps maximum download
   service — with 50 Mbps maximum uploads — for about $200 a month but does
   not actively market it. Cablevision's fastest advertised service costs
   up to $65 for maximum downloads of 30 Mbps downloads and uploads of 5 Mbps.
  
   To offer the new tier, Comcast is taking advantage of a technology
   called DOCSIS 3.0, which allows service providers to use four TV
   channels rather than just one to send data over the cables. The industry
   group CableLabs is nearing certification of DOCSIS 3.0 modems.
  
   
 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080402/ap_on_hi_te/comcast_faster_internet;_ylt=Agz9F6XU258ZFxgyO4WbYLYjtBAF
  
  
  
   
 
   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] pppoe server, Redback capability of other solutions?

2008-02-07 Thread Clint Ricker
Also, if you need help with Redback, just ask around.  There's a lot
of people with a lot of experience with those guys.  Faisal from
SnappyDSL who posted earlier could point you in the right direction
and hook you up with plenty of spare hardware and setup information if
desired.

Clint Ricker
-Kentis Technologies

On Feb 7, 2008 10:24 PM, Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I admit that I'm biased against Mikrotik.  It's good for what it is,
 but it's value is primarily in its price / flexibility.  It's not
 exactly...telco/carrier grade, or however you want to put it.  It's
 fine as edge gear, but, not what I'd put in a core role like this.

 Perhaps in terms of getting it up and running, you may be quicker with
 something that you know and have a good feel for--ie intel hardware
 running Mikrotik.  However, in terms of reliability, uptime, and
 scalability, (and I'd assume configuration options) Redback is the way
 to go.  If you want something that is a little more flexible, go Cisco
 (but, you'd pay more for comparable performance).  Price wise,
 Redback's are very attractive and very easy to get spare equipment
 for.

 Plus, you get _good_ hardware.  Not throw CPU cycles at it and keep
 some extra boxes in the closet for when it chokes good; I mean swap
 out failed power supplies / Ethernet cards / CPUs without any
 downtime sort of good.  Using PCs / Mikrotik is good when   you can't
 get your hands on good gear at a reasonable cost.  That's not the case
 in this situation...

 -Clint Ricker
 Kentnis Technologies

 ps...Please don't turn this into a flame war :).  I realize people
 here love Mikrotik, and it has its purposes.  However, in terms of
 field tested performance and reliability for PPPoE, Mikrotik is a PC
 based platform that has relatively few PPPoE deployments running under
 relatively light loads whereas Redback had a really large install base
 for high volume PPPoE termination and generally proved itself to be a
 very solid and scalable platform.



 On Feb 7, 2008 8:40 PM, Eric Muehleisen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Redback is untouchable in terms of PPPoE aggregation. Cisco is really
  the only other Router out there that is of Redback's caliber. We
  currently terminate close to 15,000 subscribers using a Redback SE 400.
  Attached is our current CPU usage.
 
 
 
  -Eric
 
 
  rabbtux rabbtux wrote:
   All
  
   I'm in the process of moving over to another upstream provider.  I'm
   working with them closely to get service to my county PUD system that
   uses pppoe tunnels for virtually  all end user connections.   ( I know
   that I can get a vlan, but the cost is prohibitive at the moment)
  
   So, I'm their first beta tester in my area and they have this used
   Redback router.  First there were problems that were to be solved with
   a firmware upgrade, now they have a hardware failure without a spare.
I'm not familiar with this router at all, but discussed it with their
   sysadmin.
  
   Apparently the need is for something that can handle 2000 sessions and
   has full 100Mbps NICs and can support that speed. I'm not a pppoe
   expert, but would a decent PC, with 4/8GB of RAM and mikrotik SW
   installed handle something like this???  Butch?  or other MT experts?
Or is this requirement way out of the MT league?
  
   For my own reasons, I want to get them going, promptly!  Any
   suggestions are greatly appreciated!!
  
   Marshall
   Rabbit Meadows Technology
  
  
   
   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] One Ring Networks To Rollout New WiMAX Service

2008-01-11 Thread Clint Ricker
Tom,
I'd agree.  I'm in no way advocating marketing that is deceptive in terms of
deliverables.

My main point is more that communications in marketing often involves using
buzzwords that coopt something someone knows for describing your product.
Even if that is, on a technical level, incorrect, on a business and
communication and marketing standpoint good practice--the reality is that
the end user understands what you are saying and more truth is
communicated--they better understand what to expect from your product.

Now, using terms that mislead the customer into expecting something that it
isn't is an entirely different matter, and one that I don't advocate and, in
the end, is very detrimental.  I think it comes down to the deliverables, in
that sense.

Thanks,
Clint Ricker
-Kentnis Technologies


On Jan 11, 2008 11:56 AM, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 First, two thumbs up for Matt. 1) He's leading the way to expand with new
 technologies.  2) He's clever enough to use maximize how he uses of Press
 Releases.

 With that said, in response to Clint, I had mixed feelings regarding the
 release.

 I didn't see a problem listing Wimax in the press release.
 Wimax/Non-Wimax, whats the difference, its wireless, its latest state of
 the
 art. All the same to the consumer.

 Where I saw it riding the line was stating Granted a License.
 I believe that misleads the public to come to a false conclusion.
 There is a big difference between licensed and unlicensed in the public
 eye.
 Licensed has 100% protection, Unlicensed 100% doesn't.
 Licenses are usualy exclusive, unlicensed is not.
 3650 light licensing is experiental and much closer to the
 characteristics
 of unlicensed, with registration added.
 Sure technically 3650 is licensed, but again the reader is misled to think
 the service is something more than it really is.

  Is that ethical? Is it deceptive? Could you here the spin? Its not
 illegal.
 Nothing was said that could be miscontrued as a lie. Is it any different
 than typical forward thinking statements of other press releases? Maybe
 just
 clever marketing?

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message -
 From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 10:15 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] One Ring Networks To Rollout New WiMAX Service


  I'd like to make a point in return.
 
  This is a press release, and it is generally used for marketing and
  publicity.  Who the flip cares about the exact nuances in technology?
  If
  Matt's company expresses their product in terms that their target market
  understands, then it is good marketing.  It's not like their customers
 are
  going to do deep layer1 and 2 analysis to see that their bandwidth is
  coming
  over the one true WiMax.  If it looks like a duck and quacks like a
 duck
  and you're talking to kindergarteners, just go ahead and call it a duck
  and
  reeducate the 1/1000 of 1 percent who become ornithologists when they
 grow
  up and care to learn the subtle nuances.
 
  I know companies that sell/sold wireless DSL.  Technically, this is a
  complete absurdity.
  But, I'd bet that it did a good job of communicating the concept--which
  is,
  after all, the point of marketing.   I'd imagine that they do better
 then
  companies that sell High bandwidth 802.11A/B/G Data Traffic Transport
  Solutions.
 
  There are service providers who still keep on trying to sell VoIP with
  multi page explanations about how the analog voice get digitized,
  packetized, encapsulated, and 20 other gazillion processes that no one
  really cares about unless they like reading RFCs every time they make
 even
  mundane purchase decisions.  Then there's Comcast who, while definitely
  not
  hurt by the existing customer base and financial resources and technical
  infrastructure, became the fourth largest telco in quite a short amount
 of
  time.  They did this by having the marketing common sense to sell
  telephone
  service, not Voice over IP.
 
  If the customers understand what Matt's product is better because he
 calls
  it WiMax, then great.  It sure sounds better than Modified
 pre-release
  quasi 802.16.  You're in business to sell products...and, that involves
  communication.  Using language that people can understand sells products
  and, in the end, gets more truth across--if that is your objective
  here--by actually communicating with people as opposed to using language
  that people just don't understand--nor care to.
 
  -Clint Ricker
  Kentnis Technologies
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  On Jan 10, 2008 7:49 PM, Mike Bushard, Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  wrote:
 
  Do your radios have sub channelization?
 
  I Congratulate you on the build, but I have to question if stuff like
  this
  is not part of the total misunderstanding of WiMAX (what it is and
  isn't).
  I
  really don't think WiMAX is the right term, Maybe WiMAX based

Re: [WISPA] One Ring Networks To Rollout New WiMAX Service

2008-01-10 Thread Clint Ricker
I'd like to make a point in return.

This is a press release, and it is generally used for marketing and
publicity.  Who the flip cares about the exact nuances in technology?  If
Matt's company expresses their product in terms that their target market
understands, then it is good marketing.  It's not like their customers are
going to do deep layer1 and 2 analysis to see that their bandwidth is coming
over the one true WiMax.  If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck
and you're talking to kindergarteners, just go ahead and call it a duck and
reeducate the 1/1000 of 1 percent who become ornithologists when they grow
up and care to learn the subtle nuances.

I know companies that sell/sold wireless DSL.  Technically, this is a
complete absurdity.
 But, I'd bet that it did a good job of communicating the concept--which is,
after all, the point of marketing.   I'd imagine that they do better then
companies that sell High bandwidth 802.11A/B/G Data Traffic Transport
Solutions.

There are service providers who still keep on trying to sell VoIP with
multi page explanations about how the analog voice get digitized,
packetized, encapsulated, and 20 other gazillion processes that no one
really cares about unless they like reading RFCs every time they make even
mundane purchase decisions.  Then there's Comcast who, while definitely not
hurt by the existing customer base and financial resources and technical
infrastructure, became the fourth largest telco in quite a short amount of
time.  They did this by having the marketing common sense to sell telephone
service, not Voice over IP.

If the customers understand what Matt's product is better because he calls
it WiMax, then great.  It sure sounds better than Modified pre-release
quasi 802.16.  You're in business to sell products...and, that involves
communication.  Using language that people can understand sells products
and, in the end, gets more truth across--if that is your objective
here--by actually communicating with people as opposed to using language
that people just don't understand--nor care to.

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies










On Jan 10, 2008 7:49 PM, Mike Bushard, Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Do your radios have sub channelization?

 I Congratulate you on the build, but I have to question if stuff like this
 is not part of the total misunderstanding of WiMAX (what it is and isn't).
 I
 really don't think WiMAX is the right term, Maybe WiMAX based, but it
 definitely is not WiMAX.

 We just turned up our first WiMAX base station today. Running 2.5Ghz and
 using 16e ready hardware. I'm Not trying to steal glory here, just making
 a
 point.


 Mike Bushard, Jr
 Wireless Network Engineer
 320-256-WISP (9477)
 320-256-9478 Fax



 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Matt Liotta
 Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 2:22 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [SPAM] Re: [WISPA] [SPAM] One Ring Networks To Rollout New WiMAX
 Service
 Importance: Low

 Steve Stroh wrote:
  Fixed WiMAX profiles for 3.5 (non-US), but NOT 3.65 GHz in the US
 because
 of
  the unique contention protocol requirements (systems for 3.65 GHz
 should
  be considered proprietary and quite possibly non-interoperable).
 
 The lower 25Mhz of 3.65Ghz does not have a contention protocol
 requirement. However, if the radio implements contention then it won't
 be restricted to the lower 25Mhz. As of today, only WiMAX radios have
 been certified for 3.65Ghz.

 -Matt



 
 
 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 MACs

2007-12-20 Thread Clint Ricker
This sounds a lot like an Mtu issue.  Either drop the Mtu on the macs  
or raise it on your gear. (probably best to lower on their gear to  
start).

- Clint Ricker


On Dec 20, 2007, at 6:46 PM, John Valenti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I use an older Mac Powerbook and just setup a new Mac Mini at home.  
I've can't remember any issues on my wireless net, or special tweaks.


I would double check the basic IP settings, DNS etc.  Try a few  
pings and traceroutes.
   (Applications folder  Utilities folder  Terminal  type  
ifconfig  or alternately look at the Network control panel)


It might be interesting to download Firefox and see if that has the  
same issues as Safari.  Is there a home wifi router involved?


It should just work.
-John

On December 20, at 3:29 PM December 20, Mark McElvy wrote:

I have a customer running a brand new MAC on my wireless network  
and he

has done nothing but complain. He runs Safari for a browser and it
regularly shows server cannot be found for a website but then lets  
you
browse elsewhere. Also gets a lot of  sites not showing pictures.  
When I

am there with my laptop running Vista I don't see the issues. I am
running a Tranzeo CPE back to a MT AP that has about 18 users. No one
else complains. Now I know about nothing on MACs so I am wondering if
there are any tweaks that may help.




--- 
--- 
--- 
--- 


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] PHP Helpdesk

2007-12-19 Thread Clint Ricker
It's definitely not an install for people who don't have a lot of unix
experience; it is a little troublesome even with a lot of experience.

That said, most of the people I know who do the paid support have a good
experience.

-Clint




On Dec 19, 2007 1:10 PM, Ty Carter Lightwave Communications 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I agree completely... NO need to rethink.. It is a PITA!

 Don't even bother!

 Ty Carter

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Mike Hammett
 Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 12:58 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] PHP Helpdesk

 Last I knew, Freeside was a PITA to install and I'm too cheap to pay
 someone
 to do it.  Maybe I ought to try again.  ;-)


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


 - Original Message -
 From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 9:23 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] PHP Helpdesk


  Freeside with built in RT Ticket system.   RT is also available as a
  standalone application, and works well.   We use it to keep track of
  installs, deinstalls, service calls, maintenance work and a few other
  things as well.
  Matt Larsen
  vistabeam.com
 
 
  Ty Carter Lightwave Communications wrote:
  Platypus w/ wombat (www.boardtown.com)
 
  Or cerebus (http://www.cerberusweb.com)
 
  Ty Carter
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On
  Behalf Of Mike Hammett
  Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 8:20 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: [WISPA] PHP Helpdesk
 
  Does anyone have a recommendation for a PHP helpdesk?
 
 
  -
  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/
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  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] tranzeo challenges

2007-12-13 Thread Clint Ricker
If you haven't already, it would probably be worth:
1. Checking whether the port is showing up on a physical layer (do you have
link on the switch?)
2. Check whether you are seeing mac addresses on the port (on Cisco
switches, show mac-address-table).  This does require a managed switch.

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies

On Dec 13, 2007 11:02 AM, Marlon Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I've got one doing a similar thing.  Every time a change is made to the
 unit
 (two of them now) it shuts off it's ethernet port.

 Today I'm going to install a different switch.  I'm also going to make
 sure
 that the other radio on that mast and the switch are on the same surge
 protector in case there's a goofy grounding or backfeed issue going on.

 In my case I had a Smartbridges APPro up there, worked just fine for
 years,
 then suddenly started dropping customers.  Installed the TR6015 and things
 were fine, till it started dropping them too.  Now I have a TR6000 in
 place
 with a Maxrad 60* sector and it acts strange too.  Gotta be some kind of
 electrical weirdness.  Finding it will be the challenging part :-).

 laters,
 marlon

 - Original Message -
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:48 PM
 Subject: [WISPA] tranzeo challenges


  We have a connectorized tranzeo AP set up to feed a couple clients.
  We've gone through a couple AP radios that have exhibited the same
  symptoms- They power up fine, clients connect up fine, SNR looks good.
  After about 10 mins, the AP stops responding.  It's still powered  up,
 but
  you cant get into it on the ethernet side.   Rebooting doesnt  help.
  We've swapped everything out.  The cable run tests good and is  @ 250'
  long.  We are using the 18v power supply that came with the  unit. Could
  the brick not have enough juice to power the unit at that  distance?
  Any
  suggestions much appreciated.
 
  Thanks
  Chris
 
  
  This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
 
 
 
 
 
 
  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 basic ROI do you target?

2007-12-01 Thread Clint Ricker
Tom, some good points.

Blair, a valid point as well--often, getting _too_ caught up in the numbers
early on can be way to time consuming relevant to resources.

However, proper accounting doesn't need to be all that time consuming, and,
in the end, is the difference between a profitable business and a
non-profitable business.  Peter from Rad-Info (who does some consulting of
these lines) used to relate some stories about accounting practices at NSPs
(DSL reseller) who bought circuits at $25, sold for $33, and somehow
imagined they were making money despite the fact that their costs of
sells, management, support, bandwidth, etc.. as about $12 per circuit
(meaning they were losing $2 per circuit).  Knowing costs is important.
Talk to Peter (on a consulting basis) or other similar people or ask around
and you can generally get a good idea for what it typically costs for
support and billing and so forth, items that can be really hard to calculate
well on a small scale.

Some people do get by with casual accounting because they have a good
innate sense of costs of doing business.  Many--myself included--can really
screw themselves over if they aren't careful because if they don't do
careful calcuations, they tend to lowball the cost, forget or underestimate
a lot of the hidden costs of providing services, and so forth.  Small
business owners also often don't differentiate between profit and what
they pay themselves, which puts themselves in a hole for growing and
expanding down the road because their cost structure doesn't allow for them
to replace their own labor with hired help.

Just an observation that Tom touched on: small service providers tend to
calculate on a monthly basis (understandable if you're worried about making
payroll next month!) and larger providers tend to calculate based on 1,3,
and 5 year models (or longer).  The latter is _very_ beneficial and helps
make a lot better business decisions in terms of equipment, advertising, and
so forth.  6 month ROI or 4 month ROI or whatever is a limiting metric for
anything other than ensuring cashflow.  I'd say X% ROI over 2 years or 1
year or whatever is far more meaningful in terms of maximizing profit--cash
flow problems can be resolved in ways other than going for quick ROI.








On Nov 30, 2007 5:24 PM, Blair Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I agree with you to a point

 But, as a small company, 2 man shop with a casual laborer on an as
 needed basis, we find that considering our 'overhead', (bandwidth,
 labor, truck, support, rent, utility's and such) as a fixed cost of
 doing business much simpler to keep track of.

 So I figure the install costs as equipment+accessory's+supplies+labor.
 I shoot for the install price to cover equipment and accessory's and
 figure to recover supplies and labor during the first 3 months of service.

 The marginal cost of adding another user is nil, once the install costs
 are covered.  The difference between supporting 200 users and 201 users,
 as an example, is, IMHO, too small to worry about.  As expansion occurs,
 we find it necessary to upgrade our bandwidth and such.  This increases
 our fixed costs per user, but by the time we need to do it, we have the
 additional users to support it.  And when we need to add a person, we
 will be able to do that as well.

 There may, likely are, better ways to do it.  But I am reminded of the
 story of the accountant and the peanut rack.


 Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
  In my mind, it all has to be counted.  At the end of the day each
  customer has a fixed cost.  Breakeven happens when any revenue ABOVE
  those fixed costs has paid back any customer acquisition costs.
 
  I don't think it's honest to say that one breaks even when counting
  100% of the monthly customer revenue.  There are tech support costs,
  bandwidth costs, billing costs etc. that are added with every new
  customer.  And, as you say, at some point extra people have to be
  added to the company and that cost gets spread over all subs.
 
  laters,
  marlon
 
  - Original Message - From: Jeff Broadwick
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 5:34 AM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] What basic ROI do you target?
 
 
  That's an interesting way of calculating the ROI.
 
  You could also take out fixed costs from your calculations and only
  add in
  those (variable) costs that relate directly to the new sub.  If you
  aren't
  adding staff or getting a bigger office, you wouldn't need to factor
  those
  costs into the calculation.
 
  Jeff
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
  Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 9:47 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] What basic ROI do you target?
 
  For AP's it's ok if I pay them off in 3 to 4 years.  I try to do 4 year
  loans for all hardware.
 
  For CPE this gets more complicated.  Everyone wants to count 

Re: [WISPA] OT: Asterisk

2007-11-25 Thread Clint Ricker

Eric,
I don't know of any in the grandstream price range. The Cisco stuff  
(186) and the adtran gear are very rock solid but pricey; linksys  
(rebranded sipura Atas are more affordable for soho use pricewise and  
are quite stable as well)


- Clint Ricker


On Nov 24, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Eric Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
wrote:



Clint,

Speaking of SIP gateways...do you have any that you recommend?  I use
the Grandstream GXW4104, and it is fairly cheap.  I know there has  
to be

a good one out there.  I have issues with it hanging up calls randomly
(especially if I am on hold), echo cancellation, and several other
little quirks.  Definitely not something that you would want to put  
in a

non-technical environment, completely un-managed.  With us, we are IT
guys so it gets us by; but if I would deploy this to a customer...NO
WAY!!!

Eric Rogers
Precision Data Solutions, LLC
(317) 831-3000 x200



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

Behalf Of Clint Ricker
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 8:19 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Asterisk

I'd recommend actually just getting an external SIP ATA for starters
(basically the same idea, but in an external network device that you
connect
to over the LAN via SIP.  Asterisk can be quite randomly finicky about
hardware sometimes and there's a lot of motherboard chipsets out there
that
Asterisk does not deal well with.  This usually manifests itself in
terms of
lockups when dealing with POTS or TDM cards...

Also, POTS cards are pretty worthless to you if you aren't doing
Asterisk; a
SIP ATA can be useful elsewhere.

On Nov 21, 2007 10:41 PM, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:


Must be inflation :P


Jonathan Schmidt wrote:

Well, Adam, you weren't far off.  The Buy it now eBay 1-FXO PCI

card

prices are around $20 and I've gotten auctions for just over $10 per

card so

I accepted your $8 as the price of winning a fortuitous auction.

Reputable stores have it typically for a bit more, around $29.  It's

all

in

the noise.

. . . j o n a t h a n


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

On

Behalf Of Adam Kennedy
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:51 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Asterisk

I'm sorry, I mixed up the terminology while typing. The $8 cards on

eBay

are regular POTS.


Scottie Arnett wrote:

Thanks Adam. FXO is foreign exchange, correct? At the office, I

only

have

regular POTS lines. Will something work with them, or do I have to

have

FXO

lines? At our POP, I have trunk side T1's that are being used for
dial-up...but I am not wanting to hook to those yet.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On

Behalf Of Adam Kennedy
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:06 PM
To: WISPA General List
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Asterisk


There are several cards available on ebay for roughly $8 each. They

will

let you plug in multiple incoming lines (FXO signalling) to toy

around

with.


Scottie Arnett wrote:

Hey All,

I am wanting to install Asterisk on a server to play around with.

Can

anyone tell me if there is a card that I can hook a couple of POTS
lines into just to try it out? Or will I have to get a digital

card?

Not wanting to pour major  into this until I have learned a

little

about it. TIA.

Sincerely,
Scottie Arnett
President
Info-ed, Inc.
615-699-3049
931-243-2101

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1143 - Release Date:

11/21/2007

10:01 AM


---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]


Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth.

Check

out www.info-ed.com for information.




--

--
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/




--

Adam Kennedy
Network Administrator
Cyberlink International
Phone: 888-293-3693 x4352
Fax: 574-855-5761




--- 
-



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

Re: [WISPA] OT: Asterisk

2007-11-24 Thread Clint Ricker
I'd recommend actually just getting an external SIP ATA for starters
(basically the same idea, but in an external network device that you connect
to over the LAN via SIP.  Asterisk can be quite randomly finicky about
hardware sometimes and there's a lot of motherboard chipsets out there that
Asterisk does not deal well with.  This usually manifests itself in terms of
lockups when dealing with POTS or TDM cards...

Also, POTS cards are pretty worthless to you if you aren't doing Asterisk; a
SIP ATA can be useful elsewhere.

On Nov 21, 2007 10:41 PM, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Must be inflation :P


 Jonathan Schmidt wrote:
  Well, Adam, you weren't far off.  The Buy it now eBay 1-FXO PCI card
  prices are around $20 and I've gotten auctions for just over $10 per
 card so
  I accepted your $8 as the price of winning a fortuitous auction.
 
  Reputable stores have it typically for a bit more, around $29.  It's all
 in
  the noise.
 
  . . . j o n a t h a n
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Adam Kennedy
  Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:51 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Asterisk
 
  I'm sorry, I mixed up the terminology while typing. The $8 cards on eBay
  are regular POTS.
 
 
  Scottie Arnett wrote:
  Thanks Adam. FXO is foreign exchange, correct? At the office, I only
 have
  regular POTS lines. Will something work with them, or do I have to have
  FXO
  lines? At our POP, I have trunk side T1's that are being used for
  dial-up...but I am not wanting to hook to those yet.
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Adam Kennedy
  Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:06 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Asterisk
 
 
  There are several cards available on ebay for roughly $8 each. They
 will
  let you plug in multiple incoming lines (FXO signalling) to toy around
  with.
 
  Scottie Arnett wrote:
  Hey All,
 
  I am wanting to install Asterisk on a server to play around with. Can
  anyone tell me if there is a card that I can hook a couple of POTS
  lines into just to try it out? Or will I have to get a digital card?
  Not wanting to pour major  into this until I have learned a little
  about it. TIA.
 
  Sincerely,
  Scottie Arnett
  President
  Info-ed, Inc.
  615-699-3049
  931-243-2101
 
  No virus found in this outgoing message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1143 - Release Date:
  11/21/2007
  10:01 AM
 
 
  ---
  [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
 
 
  Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth. Check
  out www.info-ed.com for information.
 
 
  --
  --
  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/
 

 --

 Adam Kennedy
 Network Administrator
 Cyberlink International
 Phone: 888-293-3693 x4352
 Fax: 574-855-5761



 
 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

2007-11-23 Thread Clint Ricker
Just out of curiousity, all of you who have AP problems because of bit
torrent: what APs are you using?

Thanks,
Clint

On Nov 22, 2007 11:41 PM, Scottie Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I put a connection limit on all traffic from ports 1024-65535, because the
 torrent has to use a connection somewhere and usually the bit progs are set
 to use somewhere above port 1024. That will not help on UDP or the ones
 using port 80. I have another connection limit set higher on all tcp
 connections to try to help combat the port 80 users.

 -- Original Message --
 From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Date:  Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:15:14 -0800

 Thats my point. I use star and it has all the layer 7 stuff built into
 the cpe. I can control to my hearts content. Generaly I put a switch in
 or bridge the linksys wifi router and take control there. If I had to
 and I did one situation, I can give daddy one set of rules and little
 abusing johnny another.
 
 for the most part, I don't have too much to worry about, it's not being
 able to tightly control the encrypted stuff that is the issue.
 
 
 
 CHUCK PROFITO wrote:
  You are nuts or spoiled on 5 gig or have fiber stuffed up every tower.
  1
  P2P on a 2.4 rural ap opening 100+ connections will packet flood an ap
 in
  about 1 minute.  2.4 will only realistically deliver 5 megs per radio.
 1 P2P
  uploading to 60 plus users will be slowed enough to bring the bits per
  packet way down, then the packet flood ensues.  Now put six sectors on
 a
  tower, with 300+ subs, 10 megs of back haul, then add 6 P2P and on top
 of
  that add three or four bit torrent users with 50 or 60 connections each
 down
  loading the best movie ever from Netflix, and now your backhaul starts
 the
  flood too.. And you are 30 miles from the fiber head in.  Yeah,
 right...
  Don't tell me not to shape the traffic.
 
  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 George Rogato
  Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
 
 
  Come on, you guys that sell slow broadband generaly don't have too
  much to worry about. It's not like if you got an ap that does 10 megs
  and you sell 50 512k subs that the one or three out of 20 running p2p
 is
  going to be very noticable.
  Try giving those 50 equal access to the full 10 megs and see what
  happens then, if you don't throttle the p2p.
 
 
 
 
 
  Travis Johnson wrote:
  Hi,
 
If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p
  traffic, you have bigger issues. :)
 
  Travis
  Microserv
 
 
 
 
  George Rogato wrote:
  How do you cap the encrypted stuff?
 
 
  Travis Johnson wrote:
  Hi,
 
  First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day,
  but
  otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections
  based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of
  this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If
  they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg.
 
  The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY
  else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless
  competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their
  connection, they will start switching to something that does not
 have
  caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no
 need
  for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth
  usage, but we allow reasonable usage).
 
  Travis
  Microserv
 
  George Rogato wrote:
  I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types
  of
  traffic and rate limit them.
  And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of
  various offerings we can provide.
  Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic
  rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a,
  want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want
  something different, then it's price c.
 
  The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought.
 
 
 
 
  Mark Nash wrote:
  This is a good debate.
 
  What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind
  for the
  last year or so.  As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc
 make
  $$$ off
  of our connections, where's our cut?  The customer is paying for a
  connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as
  this content
  proliferates through our networks?  Bandwidth is getting cheaper
  per meg,
  you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to
  lower the
  cost of bandwidth.
 
  However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're
  not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service
  anymore to folks who 

Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

2007-11-20 Thread Clint Ricker
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/


Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

2007-11-20 Thread Clint Ricker
On Nov 20, 2007 11:17 AM, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



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


 What if I want to sell various plans each with specific terms?
 To simplify things, I could have a cheap deal, that gave a high
 download rate and a low upload rate, or a mid priced plan that had a
 high download rate and a high upload rate, and a high priced plan that
 had a high sustained usage upload and download rate.

 Wouldn't that be fair to both me and the consumer?
 Can I not rate limit and give the customer a choice of different plans
 at different prices?


Sure.  No problem.  Just not on a per protocol basis  except for some fairly
generic and sensible prioritizations.

Do you _really_ want an Internet that resembles
http://isen.com/blog/uploaded_images/boingboingscreenshot-723474.jpg?  If
this seems far-fetched to you, go shop for cell phones and evdo service and
read the TOS :)

Honestly, if the world was full of small WISPs, this would be a different
matter.  But, consider the following:
1. About 90% (rough guess, I'm not sure of what the statistic is)  of the
United States Internet users are on connections through providers that offer
services (and, indeed, derive most of their profit) that directly compete
with services that run through their Internet access.  (the RBOCs and major
MSOs)
2. Those same service providers constitute, more or less, an oligarchy since
they generally act in unison on both regulatory petitions (odd how all major
ILECs just happen to file similar FCC petitions on the same day--great minds
must think alike) and so forth and pretty much control the market.
3. Now, those same service providers are selectively blocking and filtering
traffic, some of which carries content which just happens to undermine the
value of their major cash cows.

Most of you seem to be saying: so what?.   I still maintain that this is
_not_ a positive path for the industry and for your interests.  Sure, you
can squeeze a couple of dollars of margin (if that) off of some resi
accounts.  But, you undercut the very infrastructure that makes you
profitable.

Some of you probably are almost hoping to use this to entice customers--ie
let Comcast screw their customers over; it'll drive customers my way
Consider this, however.  In the end, people use your connections to connect
to applications and services on the Internet.  If your competitors offer
voice services but kill off an Internet voice industry, how many people will
buy your service to connect to Vonage, etc.. Plenty...until Vonage can't
make it with access to only 10% of the market.  Video services,
collaborative office apps, etc...  The application providers that, in the
end, drive your business, cannot survive in areas where they only have
reasonable access to a fraction of the market.

I would prefer that free market _could_ fix this problem.  But, when you are
dealing with entities that are looking to leverage their horizontal monopoly
to build vertical monopolies, the rules of capitalism start breaking down
pretty quickly.

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies







 
 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 Clint Ricker
Agreed.  Sharing is good.

But, best effort implies that, well, an effort is being made to deliver the
traffic, not we will actively try to stop insert disliked protocol of the
month :)



On Nov 20, 2007 12:38 PM, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I have always thought that if you buy DEDICATED bandwidth you can do what
 you want with it.  If you buy a best effort service then you have to be
 willing to share

 marlon

 Marlon
 (509) 982-2181
 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since
 1999!
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
 www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



 - Original Message -
 From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 10:48 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC


  I've been a firm believer in that the last mile can shoot themselves in
  the foot if they like, but the next company up in the chain must be
  neutral. Level 3, ATT, Cogent, Verizon, NTT, etc. should not be doing
  anything on their end for their wholesale markets  again, if they
 have
  retail end users, do whatever they want.
 
 
  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions
  http://www.ics-il.com
 
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:03 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
 
 
  This is not a black or white position - take the time to read the Vuze
  petition and focus specifically on the last two pages where they
 outline
  the goals of what they want to achieve.   Then take some time and look
 at
  what Comcast did to Bit Torrent - they specifically broke the
  application. What Vuze is asking for is pretty reasonable - the ability
  to run their applications without undue interference.
  If you back Comcast, you are backing the ability for YOUR backbone
  provider to break the applications you run on their network.   The Vuze
  petition is the position that should be backed, IMHO.
 
  Matt Larsen
  vistabeam.com
 
 
  George Rogato wrote:
  I'm not buying it.
  Yes, we as service providers have a right to determine th service
 level
  agreements we want to set for the price we decide.
 
  A consumer has always believed that they have an unlimited do anything
  they want with our connection mentality.
 
  We on the other hand have always had terms of service that nullify the
  anything you want unlimited mentality.
 
  If we are in disagreement with Comcast's position, then what are we
  really saying?
 
  We would be saying, anything goes, we have no control, we can't rate
  limit.
 
  The free market system, does not tie the hands of the isp, but rather
  allows us each to set our own service levels and terms of service, and
  compete based on our own service offerings.
 
  To restrict an isp from making a decision, is in no way the free
 market
  system, but rather the regulated system.
 
  I'm with Comcast on this. I do not want to be regulated. Let me live
 or
  die on the way I decide to run my network.
 
  Thanks Eje for bringing this to our attention.
 
  My recommendation is to back Comcast.
  George
 
  Clint Ricker wrote:
  Sam and Matt, very well said.
 
  To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable
  companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your
  competition.  You can't win by the rules that they make.  The network
  neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider
  economics
  enough in very positive directions for you.  This is a
  politically-charged
  enough topic that something interesting may actually happen on this
 :)
 
  First of all, get more customers!  With enough customers, the
  oversubscription on bandwidth becomes much better--you can fit
  thousands and
  thousands of resi customers in a 100Mb/s pipe without dropping, but
  about
  10-20 in a 5Mb/s pipe.   With enough customers, the bandwidth cost
 per
  customer comes down to almost nothing.  If you need to limit a couple
  of
  outlying customers (the ones using 3Mb/s all the time), sure, go
 ahead.
  But
  don't hate bit torrent or any other protocol :)  Bit Torrent
 bandwidth
  costs
  _exactly_ the same price as http bandwidth.
 
  I really don't agree with a business philosophy that fundamentally
 sees
  it
  as a bad thing if people are actually using your service :).  Embrace
  it and
  figure out how to make it profitable (hint--spend more time getting
 new
  customers and less time trying to shave costs).   The bandwidth math
 is
  MUCH
  better with 1,000 customers than a hundred and MUCH better with
 10,000
  than
  a 1,000.
 
  To everyone thinking that there needs to be network neutrality
  requirements for big guys, but little guys should be allowed to
 block:
  do
  you really

Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

2007-11-20 Thread Clint Ricker
What's Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc's cut every time you sign
up a customer who is getting Internet access to get to Lingo / Slingbox /
Netflix?

You are making money off of them--no one gets Internet access to get to
access to their ISPs portal and only their ISPs portal.

What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind for the
 last year or so.  As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$
 off
 of our connections, where's our cut?  The customer is paying for a
 connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as this
 content
 proliferates through our networks?  Bandwidth is getting cheaper per meg,
 you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to lower the
 cost of bandwidth.

 However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're not so
 squeezed out that we feel like not providing service anymore to folks who
 desperately want it.  With more and more apps providing high-throughput
 content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by going
 with a bigger/cheaper pipe.  IF IT IS UNCHECKED.

 My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting our
 customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still say that
 deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for heavy usage is a
 valuable consideration in any business plan for an ISP.  Bandwidth
 shaping,
 bandwidth caps, bill for overages, dedicated bandwidth option.  If you
 have
 this in place, you really need not worry about anything else with respect
 to
 high bandwidth usage.

 IMHO.

 Thanks everyone for listening to my half-rant.  I'm going to get something
 done now. ;)

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

 - Original Message -
 From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:51 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC


  Another thought is
 
  Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast network to
  support it's business plan.
 
  If they are relying on Comcasts network to store and send files to it's
  customer base, why should they be treated for a free ride instead of
  using a hosting provider like Akamia.
 
  Guess that is just as a significant point as any other, the fair
  compensation for services?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --
 --
  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] P2P Countermeasures

2007-11-20 Thread Clint Ricker
This sort of stuff uses a combination of ports, traffic heuristics  
(different types of traffic will have different traffic patterns--ie  
web browsing is intermittent, FTP may be sustained, p2p will have show  
a lot of simultaneos connections all over, most of which timeout, etc)  
and deep packet inspection. Deep packet inspection is marketing  
meaning they'll grab the first few packets from a Tcp or whatever  
session and analyze to see what type of traffic it is.


It's quite simple stuff (once you brush all the marketing jumbo  
aside); if, for whatever reason (ie encryption) it can't use one of  
the above methods, it will just rely on the other two with the  
liability of less accurate results (resulting in some targetted  
traffic passing unfiltered and some untargetted traffic getting  
dropped).


- Clint Ricker


On Nov 20, 2007, at 3:54 PM, Jeff Broadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
wrote:


I'd be very interested in knowing how they do that.  The point of  
encryption
is to mask the traffic, so layer 7 packet inspection should not be  
able to

tell what is there.

Jeff


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

Behalf Of Mike Bushard, Jr
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 3:44 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] P2P Countermeasures

I haven't specifically tested it, but they say that the Deep Packet
Inspection engine will mark and rate limit Encrypted Peer 2 Peer  
traffic. I

know my AC-802 does a very good job of marking and shaping traffic.

Mike Bushard, Jr
Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC
320-256-WISP (9477)
320-256-9478 Fax


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

Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:32 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] P2P Countermeasures

How does the Allot box handle the encrypted ptp traffic Mike?

Jeff


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

Behalf Of Mike Bushard, Jr
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:48 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] P2P Countermeasures

Buy an Allot Box.

Mike Bushard, Jr
Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC
320-256-WISP (9477)
320-256-9478 Fax

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

Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:57 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] P2P Countermeasures

How do you identify it if it is encrypted?

Jeff

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

Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:41 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] P2P Countermeasures

Call Butch,

We set ALL ptp traffic to share a single 128k connection.  :-)

laters,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator  
since 1999!

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message -
From: Ron Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 4:58 PM
Subject: [WISPA] P2P Countermeasures



To All,
The issue of P2P rears its relatively unattractivehead in my neck of
the woods from time to time. This is one of those times.
- So, what is everyone doing to'counter' the influx of traffic from  
P2P?

- What are the most effective P2P countermeasures that you have
employed, lately?
- For those fo you that respond, I will put it all in a file and make
it available to all, via Scriv.
Heck who should approve the dumpingofthat info onto WISPA - Rick
Harnish -



I'll checkwith him.
Ron Wallace
Hahnron, Inc.
220 S. Jackson Dt.
Addison, MI 49220

Phone: (517)547-8410
Mobile: (517)605-4542
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]





--- 
--- 
--



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

Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

2007-11-19 Thread Clint Ricker
 business model.  If you question my
math, feel free to contact me offl-list--there are some specifics that I'm
not willing to discuss in a public forum.

Thanks,
Clint Ricker
-Kentnis Technologies





On Nov 18, 2007 10:44 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 My strong feeling is that the free market approach is by far the best
 approach to the Network Neutrality/Network Management.  If Comcast wants
 to degrade the service to their customers, then that is an opportunity
 for the other providers in the market - they are essentially degrading
 their own service, especially if they are doing it in a way that
 breaks specific applications.   In markets where there is a monopoly
 or duopoly  and both providers engage in purposefully breaking specific
 applications, leaving the customer with no choices, the market condition
 is a result of poor regulatory policy - not poor network management.
 Competition will take care of that problem.  The few remaining
 independent ISPs have this as one of the few potential advantages that
 they can bring to the table - a truly different type of service, with
 the concerns of the provider and the customer in balance and appropriate
 for both parties.  The issue that Vuze seems to be taking is that
 breaking of applications is unacceptable, but good network management is
 fine, as long as it doesn't discriminate against specific applications
 or protocols.

 I do take issue with the characterization of Vuze/BitTorrent as being a
 parasite on our networks.   They are not forcing the customer to use
 them for content - our customers paid for connectivity to the Internet,
 and should be able to use that connectivity for whatever they want to,
 in a way that does not degrade the performance of the network.   It is
 the responsibility of the network operator to deploy the network is a
 way to deliver appropriate levels of service,  establish clear
 definitions of the different levels of service and communicate the
 differences to the customers so that they know what they are getting.  I
 personally love Vuze, I use it to get my favorite Showtime shows and
 also for downloading OS images and software updates.  Using it for these
 purposes doesn't harm or degrade my network and is a very appropriate
 set of uses for me or any other user on my network.  It does help that I
 have optimized the software to use a limited number of connections, and
 have also optimized my network to ensure that no customers are able to
 open an excessive number of connections to use it.   This not a
 violation of Network Neutrality or an example of Intentional
 Degradation to an application.   It is optimization.  It is also the
 responsibility of companies like Vuze to make sure that their software
 is optimized for good performance as well - it is in their best interest.

 Bit Caps are not necessarily the answer, as it introduces levels of
 billing complexity and doesn't always represent the best solution.  If
 there is extra capacity on the network, and the provider's backbone
 connection is not subject to bit caps or usage-based billing, then bit
 caps are not needed because the economic cost of extra bits is
 inconsequential.   However, too many have taken this too far, leading to
 the idea that bits are free, which is total B.S.   There is always an
 underlying foundational cost of infrastructure connectivity, and that
 cost needs to be taken into consideration.   The free bits exist in
 the netherland of non-peak hours and the interval between a backbone
 connection that is too large and one that is saturated.  Free bits
 represent a place for innovation, and some providers are doing just
 that, with open downloads and service level upgrades during off-peak
 hours.   But not all bits are free.

 In conclusion, I don't think that the Vuze petition is too far off the
 mark.   Someone SHOULD be raising a stink about what Comcast is doing -
 it goes beyond prudent network management and right into anti-trust type
 behavior.

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com









 Anthony Will wrote:
  Here is some food for thought,
 
  We may want to approach this issue with a free market approach.  We
  may want to emphasize that the free market can and will self regulate
  this behavior.  If Comcast is discouraging their customers from
  operating this type of software, that creates an opportunity for
  another operator to move into the area that does not. We do have to
  keep in the back of our mind that the main issue for us as wireless
  operators is that P2P solutions create an burden on our systems not so
  much for bandwidth but on the amount of connections that are created
  by this type of software.  One P2P application that goes wild with
  2000+ connctions can bring an AP to its knees thus effecting 50 - 200
  other customers on that same AP.
  We may also want to empathize that his type of distributed content
  if allowed to continue likely will lead to bit caps or other types of
  metered

Re: [WISPA] vlans

2007-11-19 Thread Clint Ricker
Travis,
Are you routing or bridging between between the clients, APs, and your
router?  It would probably be worth doing packet captures and actually
seeing what the traffic is.  If you are routing between the AP and the
router, then it is very unlikely that your problem is broadcast related.
Unless you have a _lot_ of CPEs that are bridged back to the router and/or
don't route on the CPE, I would be not really think that ARP is really a
problem.

Broadcast storms generally are the result of 3 things, off the top of my
head:
1. having a loop on your layer 2 (Ethernet) (shouldn't be an issue)
2. _way_ too many devices in a layer 2 broadcast domain (may be an issue)
3. Bad and/or malicious network programs generating too much broadcast
traffic.  If you control the CPE and you route on the CPE, then this can't
really be an issue.

You are correct on the implementation of VLANs; you will also need to create
virtual interfaces for each vlan on the router and setup IPs and routing for
each virtual interface.

Feel free to ping me offline if you need more assistance.

Thanks,
Clint Ricker
-Kentnis Technologies


















On Nov 18, 2007 11:47 PM, Ryan Langseth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 That should,  now in order to do that you will need to have a separate
 subnet for each AP and the customers off of it (I believe).  Have you
 done any packet sniffing to see if there is a lot of ARP requests?

 How many hosts do you have off of that tower?


 Ryan


 On Nov 18, 2007, at 10:02 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:

  Hi,
 
  I will be the first to admit that I know very little about VLANs. I
  understand the concept and even how to configure them (somewhat).
  Currently our entire network is fully routed and switched without
  any VLANs. However, we are starting to see a problem on larger tower
  locations where we have 6-10 AP's all plugged into the same ethernet
  switch, and then into a router before it gets to our backbone. I
  think what we are seeing are ARP broadcast storms, etc. and it
  affects all the AP's on that switch at the same time. Ping times to
  customers and the AP's go up to 1500-2000ms, yet we never see the
  traffic on the router itself.
 
  My question is this: Could I enable VLANs on the switch, and put
  each AP into it's own VLAN and then make the port the router is
  plugged into the trunk port? Would this stop the broadcasts from
  affecting other AP's on that switch?
 
  Is there a better solution? What is everyone else doing?
 
  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] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

2007-11-19 Thread Clint Ricker
Marlon, you are pretty rural :)   You probably would have a hard time
growing much without heading 500 miles to find a market with more people
than cows :).  From what I'd guess from your economics, strict bandwidth
caps may be a good choice for you--but, for people who either are in or have
access to larger markets, more subscribers is a better route for _so_ many
reasons and has the nice benefit of making bandwidth much cheaper on a
per-subscriber basis--increased oversubscription ratios combined with lower
bandwidth costs.

Thanks,
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies


On Nov 19, 2007 12:20 PM, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 That's easy to say when you are in an area with thousands of potential
 customers ;-)

 Marlon
 (509) 982-2181
 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since
 1999!
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
 www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



 - Original Message -
 From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 8:48 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC


  I'm glad someone else has the same philosophy I do.
 
 
  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions
  http://www.ics-il.com
 
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 9:48 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
 
 
  Sam and Matt, very well said.
 
  To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable
  companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your
  competition.  You can't win by the rules that they make.  The network
  neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider
 economics
  enough in very positive directions for you.  This is a
  politically-charged
  enough topic that something interesting may actually happen on this :)
 
  First of all, get more customers!  With enough customers, the
  oversubscription on bandwidth becomes much better--you can fit
 thousands
  and
  thousands of resi customers in a 100Mb/s pipe without dropping, but
 about
  10-20 in a 5Mb/s pipe.   With enough customers, the bandwidth cost per
  customer comes down to almost nothing.  If you need to limit a couple
 of
  outlying customers (the ones using 3Mb/s all the time), sure, go ahead.
  But
  don't hate bit torrent or any other protocol :)  Bit Torrent bandwidth
  costs
  _exactly_ the same price as http bandwidth.
 
  I really don't agree with a business philosophy that fundamentally sees
  it
  as a bad thing if people are actually using your service :).  Embrace
 it
  and
  figure out how to make it profitable (hint--spend more time getting new
  customers and less time trying to shave costs).   The bandwidth math is
  MUCH
  better with 1,000 customers than a hundred and MUCH better with 10,000
  than
  a 1,000.
 
  To everyone thinking that there needs to be network neutrality
  requirements for big guys, but little guys should be allowed to block:
 do
  you really want to send the message to your (potential) customers:
  hey--my
  competition will let you run the service you want, I won't.
 
  This is an opportunity to actually get ahead of the game and have a leg
  up
  on your competition.  Here are the facts as I see them (applies to the
  residential market only):
 
  1. The cost of bandwidth for telcos and MSOs is really extremely low on
 a
  per customer basis.  The bulk of their cost--and why this is a big
 issue
  for
  them--is the cost of getting that bandwidth to the customer.  For these
  guys, the major cost is in the transport networks: fiber buildout is
  extremely expensive, transport gear is incredibly expensive, etc.
  WISPs
  have ridiculously cheap transport networks and, with enough scale,
 don't
  really pay much more for bandwidth.  If you get scale, your bandwidth
  costs
  also drop.  In other words, once you hit a certain scale, your cost of
  delivering service becomes much less than your competition.
  2. You can't compete on price with a telco/mso doing triple play.  The
  economics aren't there.  You don't offer video.  Your customers want
  video.
  They want to be able to watch House and CSI and Dancing with the Stars.
  This means that even if they keep you for Internet access, they will
 sign
  up
  for television service.  They will then, every month, get offers for
  bundled
  video + data services (and sometimes voice) for prices that you can't
  compete with.
  3. Your competitors can't compete in price without subsidizing their
  network
  buildout with revenue from overpriced, monopolistic telephony and video
  solutions.  If/When the Internet becomes _the_ medium for delivering
  this,
  you can adapt to that by...the end of this week.  Your competition will
  take
  years and years to get

Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

2007-11-19 Thread Clint Ricker
George,
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?

Marlon includes, if I remember, 6GB of data and then charges for overages.
If you are _really_ struggling with people abusing your service, put
something like this in your TOS.  Then, your customers can take their 6GB a
month and transfer 6GB of video or 6GB of MP3s or 6GB of email, or 6GB of
web traffic, or any combination, or figure out some crazy use for 6GB a
month that no one ever dreamed of.  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.

You said If we are in disagreement with Comcast's position, then what are
we really saying? We would be saying, anything goes, we have no control,
we can't rate limit.  This isn't true.  Comcast is NOT rate limiting, they
are filtering specific types of content.

True, net neutrality is regulation and does tie your hands.  Sure.  But,
it ties your hands in a fashion that is MUCH more favorable to you than you
your competition.  You can operate a single pipe/service business model
profitably (or at least I assume so); your competition can't.

Just out of curiosity, what is your sales pitch?  In the end--if you engage
in all the negative business practices of your competition, have similar (if
not more expensive pricing), and invest much less in network deployment on a
per-customer basis, what is your value proposition?  I'm not meaning that to
be rude--I just have seen most of the traditional arguments I used to use to
recommend independent ISPs to people disappear over the past few years as
margins have grown smaller (with some very positive notable exceptions).  If
you keep on down this road, aren't you just a smaller version of your
competition who ends up being more expensive and less reliable* (albeit with
local tech support)?  (* This is just a guess, but I'd guess that most
independent ISPs have more outages than most of the major players due to
different levels of infrastructure investment.  Not an indictment of anyone
specifically.)

I support regulating Internet access towards Net Neutrality for two
reasons:
1. I have a broad understanding of the Internet and it's potential--I view
it a little broader than just a means of buying stuff on Amazon and Ebay and
sending an email or two (hundred).
2. The vast majority of the Internet subscribers out there are tied to
fairly monopolistic providers who offer directly competing services to those
provided on the Internet.  I prefer Internet-based video because I have
access to a much larger selection than the 100 or so (mostly identical)
channels provided by a standard cable MSO--however, Comcast's fight is
DIRECTLY related to my ability to use these services.  BTW, I am relatively
a light subscriber in terms of bandwidth :).

This fight is _not_ about the ability to profitably offer Internet
access--it's about the ability to restrict content to sustain aging business
models that are threatened by newer technologies.

Also, telecom is not free market :).  It is, in the end, a utility, and, as
such, should be subject to some regulations and restrictions to ensure that
it operates under some pretense of public interest.

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies







On Nov 19, 2007 12:47 PM, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I'm not buying it.
 Yes, we as service providers have a right to determine th service level
 agreements we want to set for the price we decide.

 A consumer has always believed that they have an unlimited do anything
 they want with our connection mentality.

 We on the other hand have always had terms of service that nullify the
 anything you want unlimited mentality.

 If we are in disagreement with Comcast's position, then what are we
 really saying?

 We would be saying, anything goes, we have no control, we can't rate
 limit.

 The free market system, does not tie the hands of the isp, but rather
 allows us each to set our own service levels and terms of service, and
 compete based on our own service offerings.

 To restrict an isp from making a decision, is in no way the free market
 system, but rather the regulated system.

 I'm with Comcast on this. I do not want to be regulated. Let me live or
 die on the way I decide to run my network.

 Thanks Eje for bringing this to our attention.

 My recommendation is to back Comcast.
 George

 Clint Ricker wrote:
  Sam and Matt, very well said.
 
  To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable
  companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your
  competition.  You can't win by the rules that they make.  The network
  neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider
 economics
  enough in very positive directions for you.  This is a
 politically-charged
  enough topic that something interesting may

Re: [WISPA] On-Call Compensation

2007-11-14 Thread Clint Ricker
Generally, somewhere around 1 to 2 days pay for each week on call is
typical--it really does depend on what you're paying your employees.  Some
guy making $10/hr is different than someone making $80,000.

It also does depend on your company.  If you're a small mom and pop shop and
have a very strong team feeling, you may not be able to afford that
premium--and your employees will still be fine pitching in for less.

If problems are rare, then 1 day, if occasional, 2 days, and if
frequent...well, you may want to examine infrastructure and/or hire night
shift :)  Also, typically there is some sort of comp-time / flexible
scheduling involved here.  If not done already, put the investment in
various remote access and remote reboot setups so that, barring needing to
actually replace equipment, everything can be done remotely.  Have readily
accessible spares, etc.  In other words, make it as easy as possible...
Having too-frequent on-call issues because of whatever will heavily impact
job satisfaction regardless of what you're paying--at some point, money
isn't the issue for most employees.

Honestly, I would err on the side of generous on this if at all possible
just from the standpoint of employee retention.  From what I've seen in the
industry, on-call is a major cause of burnout and job dissatisfaction.
Additionally, because it sometimes directly impacts and interrupts family /
personal time at unplanned moments, often spouses of employees start
resenting it as well.   A lot of companies do have manditory on-call that is
not (directly) compensated so you aren't necessarily atypical if you don't
directly compensate or you only do a token amount.  Just keep in mind that
you will decrease job satisfaction.

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies













On Nov 14, 2007 12:00 AM, Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 We talked about this lately in my office.

 We're talking about $50 if you just pull standby, maybe answer a couple of
 phone calls.  $100 if you have to go out or answer more than a couple of
 calls.
 marlon

 - Original Message -
 From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 6:40 PM
 Subject: [WISPA] On-Call Compensation


  We are wanting to have people be on-call in case of emergencies and for
  telephone tech support at night  on weekends.  How do you pay your
 people
  for on-call time where they are doing nothing, and how do you then pay
  them when they work during those time periods?
 
  Are there employment rules on this?
 
  Mark Nash
  UnwiredOnline
  350 Holly Street
  Junction City, OR 97448
  http://www.uwol.net
  541-998-
  541-998-5599 fax
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  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] Politics as Usual

2007-10-28 Thread Clint Ricker
Inline as well :)

On 10/27/07, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Inline.

 Clint Ricker wrote:
  To be honest, I don't agree with providers restricting traffic on a
  per-protocol basis, with, perhaps, the exception of SMB ports (137-139
   445) simply because there very few people legitimately uses SMB over
  WAN outside of a VPN.
 
  The problem with allowing any blocking, even with full disclosure, is
  that there is very little choice in the market (2-3 service provider
  options is typical for most people, and a lot don't even have that).
  Likewise, the major service providers tend to mirror each other
  heavily enough that they are more or less interchangeable.  In other
  words, it's not a matter of well, if comcast doesn't allow bit
  torrent, I'll just go to a provider that does.  If they are allowed
  to block, they will...the negative repurcussions of blocking are quite
  small compared to the benefit of forcing customers to their own
  services.
 
 2-3 services providers sounds like a choice to me, I guess I'm not sure
 what the number would be.  I guess if you just have 2-3 DSL resellers in
 an area that you would not have much choice but if between a DSL, cable
 and WISP you can't find what you are looking for, you are probably being
 unrealistic in your expectations.

Not really.

I use a # of online outlets to view most of my media--I download
movies online, I watch Joost occasionally, etc...

In aggregrate, I'm a very light user, though, in terms of what I use.
I think this can apply to a large portion of the population.

If...once...as.. it becomes acceptable for providers to block various
services and protocols, these are the services that I expect to get
impacted fairly soon, because they heavily impact the bread and butter
of the cable MSOs as well as the ongoing investments of ATT and
Verizon.  And, if one major provider does it, they will all do it soon
enough.

The problem of disclosure and competition as resolutions to this
problem is that the major service providers do act in concert in a lot
of these things (I think the correct term is oligarchy, which gives
the illusion of choice.  When it comes down to it, there is very
little substantive difference among service providers.  If you want a
good example of this, look at most of the major petitions for relief
that have been filed at the FCC--is it coincidence that all the RBOCs
just happened to file the same petition in the same week?  Shop for
cell phone service lately?  I can't be the only one that feels like
it's all just rebranded versions of the same terms of service and
pricing with some very small variances in cell phones (and these small
variences become even smaller once they are locked down by the
carrier).

I'm not naive about the economics of the industry--I've been around
the block a time or two :).  I'm also aware that what makes the
Internet so successful IS that it is an open platform.
I do feel that service providers have a moral and ethical obligation
not to damage the product that they are selling, and, in the end,
closing off avenues of innovation does damage the Internet.

BTW, I find it odd that independent service providers get sucked into
fighting battles that are largely in their competitors interest.  YOU
win when applications like Movielink, Joost, and yes, even Bit Torrent
thrive because they wean customers away from cable tit.

The fact of the matter is is that 99% of you do not have the ability
to deliver television services and what all to your customers.  You
LOSE customers now because they can get bundled alternatives from the
competition.  On the other hand, if there are thriving independent
alternatives (ie Joost) to watching television, you win because your
customers no longer need traditional television service.  (I realize
that's not quite there yet--but, for some people, it already is a
reasonable substitute and the time will come IF it doesn't get
strangled first where it is a viable substitute).

Having to slightly adjust your oversubscription ratios is a small
price to pay for your customers not needing to go to the competition
for the services that you can't possibly offer that they need/want.


 The only way that you could make actual net neutrality (the banning of
 any traffic shaping beyond a bit cap) work would be to move to Marlon's
 method of billing where you charge on a byte transferred basis.  I don't
 know too many people that can survive in the residential model without
 heavy oversubscription and net neutrality will kill that model because
 if you oversubscribe 10 to 1 and you get more than 10% P2P traffic you
 are on the losing end of it.


I disagree with this.  Do you pay any more for 1MB of P2P traffic than
1MB of, say, http?  From your cost perspective, all traffic is equal.
The only thing that kills an oversubscription model is customers using
beyond the oversubscription.  P2P, or any other type of traffic is not
the enemy; I think that the idea

Re: [WISPA] Politics as Usual

2007-10-27 Thread Clint Ricker
To be honest, I don't agree with providers restricting traffic on a
per-protocol basis, with, perhaps, the exception of SMB ports (137-139
 445) simply because there very few people legitimately uses SMB over
WAN outside of a VPN.

The problem with allowing any blocking, even with full disclosure, is
that there is very little choice in the market (2-3 service provider
options is typical for most people, and a lot don't even have that).
Likewise, the major service providers tend to mirror each other
heavily enough that they are more or less interchangeable.  In other
words, it's not a matter of well, if comcast doesn't allow bit
torrent, I'll just go to a provider that does.  If they are allowed
to block, they will...the negative repurcussions of blocking are quite
small compared to the benefit of forcing customers to their own
services.

By and large, I don't agree with the approach that some of the list
members have espoused  that would seem to suggest that such actions
are ok for the small mom  pop providers but not for the major service
providers.  If you are going to provide Internet access, do your part
to further the culture of a content-neutral policy.  If nothing else,
you'll at least be the provider that gives the alternative for
customers want a more net netrality-minded service provider.









On 10/26/07, Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 My take is that this is the that fateful first step on a very
 slippery slope. Today they rate shape the traffic, next week they out
 right block it. I agree that any provider needs to use what ever tools
 they have to keep users in line. The problem that Forbes is pointing
 out (I think) is that they are not telling customers they are doing
 this [rate shaping]. It also stems from the bad use of the word
 unlimited who's root is the heyday of dial-up [in terms of hours,
 not bandwidth or quantity of data). Regardless of weather I see it
 correctly or not, Very Good Work and we all should get writing.
 www.house.gov/writerep


 On 10/26/07, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I'll crack open the can of worms
 
  What are you suggesting here Forbes?  If it's just truth in advertising
  then I'm behind you 100%.
 
  If however you are suggesting that an ISP should not be able to block
  traffic of a particular type I will have to disagree.  Currently I do
  not shape traffic beyond bandwidth limits on my customers and blocking
  netbios traffic at each AP.  I would hate to lose the ability to block
  ports 137-139 though from a security standpoint.
 
  I know there are many other ISPs that aggressively shape their bandwidth
  just to stay in business.  Forcing them to open up the pipes will most
  likely end up with poorer service for more customers.
 
  If I were an uninvolved 3rd party it would be interesting to see the
  market react to legislation that forced no traffic shaping beyond
  bandwidth caps, but as an independent ISP I don't think I want to try to
  live through it.
 
  Sam Tetherow
  Sandhills Wireless
 
  Forbes Mercy wrote:
   After reading a story this morning on a industry related blog I wrote a 
   letter to my Republican Congressman.  I sent the same to my two Democrat 
   Senators but just took out the reference to being a Republican. :)  
   Anyway I'm putting it here just so you can remember that only we can keep 
   the pressure up on our representatives on issues that affect us and this 
   is as good of a subject as any to keep beating the drum:
  
   A year ago I wrote you when the ATT purchase was being approved stating 
   we had to stay vigilant against the carriers blocking each other in what 
   we refer to as Net Neutrality.  You wrote back, and I thank you for that, 
   stating there is no real proof of providers blocking any traffic.  This 
   despite my proof at the time that Clearwire was already blocking any 
   Voice over IP service (Internet Phone) other then theirs.
  
   I felt your stand was naïve because trusting the Telephone companies is 
   like trusting the prisoners to watch the prison.  We're both good 
   Republicans who want to let companies grow as they may to achieve 
   profitability but the exclusionary tactics encouraging monopolistic 
   behavior is alive as always in this industry.  Here is a link showing how 
   the wholly unregulated cable industry continues to set the standard of 
   censorship and gradual demise of a free and open Internet:
  
   http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/10/comcast_is_bloc.html?cid=nl_IWK_daily
  
   It is my hope you will pay heed to my warning that open enterprise does 
   not include making Internet access different by companies who make no 
   public claims in their terms and conditions to their customers.  This 
   constitutes fraud as people buy Internet based on the belief that their 
   subscription entitles them to a free and open network as it was built.
  
   I again greatly encourage you to consider Net Neutrality 

Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth, Best place.

2007-10-01 Thread Clint Ricker
How many megs and where are you currently picking it up / getting it delivered?

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies

On 10/1/07, Mike Bushard, Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I figured I would start a new thread for this.

 My question is with this type of thing happening, what would be the best way
 to obtain bandwidth? Get multiple tier 1's, or a mix of tier 1's and tier
 2's, or multiple tier 2's?

 Who would be the best ones to go with? How many carriers do you really need?

 Currently we have one tier 2 provider, Onvoy, who has bandwidth from
 multiple tier 1's and 2's. But we have been thinking of adding another
 provider.

 Mike Bushard, Jr
 Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC
 320-256-WISP (9477)
 320-256-9478 Fax


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Matt Liotta
 Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 8:28 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Netflix

 Mike Hammett wrote:
  The Level3 depeer was caused by Level3, not Cogent.  It has the same
  effect, but a different cause.
 
 Whoever caused it; Cogent is the one that made it painful for the entire
 internet. They could have rerouted traffic instead of blackholing all of
 Level3. The fact that they offered free transit to Level3 customers only
 shows their intent to send a message to Level3 et al.

 -Matt

 -Matt
 
 

 ** 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/


 

 ** 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/



** 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] Bandwidth, Best place.

2007-10-01 Thread Clint Ricker
Where's the CO located?

On 10/1/07, Mike Bushard, Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Flex OC-3 Direct to the CO.

 Mike Bushard, Jr
 Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC
 320-256-WISP (9477)
 320-256-9478 Fax


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Clint Ricker
 Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 9:41 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth, Best place.

 How many megs and where are you currently picking it up / getting it
 delivered?

 -Clint Ricker
 Kentnis Technologies

 On 10/1/07, Mike Bushard, Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I figured I would start a new thread for this.
 
  My question is with this type of thing happening, what would be the best
 way
  to obtain bandwidth? Get multiple tier 1's, or a mix of tier 1's and tier
  2's, or multiple tier 2's?
 
  Who would be the best ones to go with? How many carriers do you really
 need?
 
  Currently we have one tier 2 provider, Onvoy, who has bandwidth from
  multiple tier 1's and 2's. But we have been thinking of adding another
  provider.
 
  Mike Bushard, Jr
  Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC
  320-256-WISP (9477)
  320-256-9478 Fax
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Matt Liotta
  Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 8:28 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Netflix
 
  Mike Hammett wrote:
   The Level3 depeer was caused by Level3, not Cogent.  It has the same
   effect, but a different cause.
  
  Whoever caused it; Cogent is the one that made it painful for the entire
  internet. They could have rerouted traffic instead of blackholing all of
  Level3. The fact that they offered free transit to Level3 customers only
  shows their intent to send a message to Level3 et al.
 
  -Matt
 
  -Matt
 
 
  
 
  ** 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/
 
 
 
 
 
 
  ** 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/
 
 
 

 ** 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/


 

 ** 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

Re: [WISPA] Cable network for Internet, VoIP and Video distribution

2007-09-25 Thread Clint Ricker
Javier,
If I'm understanding the question correctly, which is basically Can I
send DOCSIS over IP networks (wireless or otherwise), the answer is
no.

If you think about it in terms of OSI model, it will become a little
clearer--the CMTS use a QAM to read the RF signal and pull the
Ethernet frames (this is layer one / layer two); your basically asking
if that information can be encapsulated inside of a layer-3 IP packet
(and the answer is no).

There are DOCSIS over wireless solutions (look at various wireless
plant extensions for more detail) that basically shove the RF out
over wireless instead of out the HFC plant, but that doesn't seem to
be what you're looking for...

What problem are you trying to solve?  I'm assuming there is some
reason why you aren't just using IP wireless links directly to the
customers

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies






On 9/25/07, Javier Arigita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The CMTS does have ethernet interface. The problem is the distribution
 of the video data and voice. The CMTS seem to have an IF (intermediate
 frecuency) interfaces and coaxial interfaces.

 The IF if is meant to transmit the CMTS signal over wireless links
 (not IP ones of course), the coax ifs do the same over coax lines.

 I would like to transmit that signal using IP wireless links (such
 as Alv B100 or whatever) to other areas. If we do not manage to do
 that we will have to install one CMTS for each area and that is really
 expensive.

 Many Thanks for your responses. If you have any other clue on how to
 solve this please let me know.

 On 9/25/07, Allen Yu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  The Motorola PTP 600 radio support both Ethernet and T1 interface. Not sure
  which CMTS you are refer to, but the compact CMTS/Router does have Ethernet
  interface, does that combination will work?
 
  Regards
 
  Allen
 
 
  On 9/25/07, Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   If they're only going to use 1 CMTS then you must get wireless links that
   shoot video, which will pretty much kill any IP wireless links in the area
   running on the same channel.
  
   A CMTS usually must have a management server for provisioning 
   management,
   so you could buy several cheaper CMTSs (I purchased a used Nortel/Arris
   CMTS1000 years ago and it's never had a hiccup) and place them at each
   site,
   linking them to the management server via wireless links.
  
   I've also investingated DOCSIS wireless radios (they'll just do the data
   part).
  
   The problem with all this is if you don't have some kind of circuits
   (wired
   or wireless) between the sites, then you'll have to have feeds for all the
   channels you're going to provide at each location.  Depending on mileage,
   you may be able to use dry copper circuits.  I know that some of this can
   be
   done over T-1 circuits, but the project I'm involved in didn't go that
   route, so I never spent too much time on it.
  
   Hope this helps.
  
   Mark Nash
   UnwiredOnline
   350 Holly Street
   Junction City, OR 97448
   http://www.uwol.net
   541-998-
   541-998-5599 fax
  
   - Original Message -
   From: Javier Arigita [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   To: wireless@wispa.org
   Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 3:17 AM
   Subject: [WISPA] Cable network for Internet, VoIP and Video distribution
  
  
One of my customers is designing a Cable operator network for several
estate areas. They plan to use a Motorola CMTS device to serve those
areas.
   
The areas are not connected by fiber and the problem they are facing
is the way to extend the CMTS service to those areas. They have think
in PTP radio links but the CMTS devices are not IP, so they should use
1 CMTS for each area and that is very expensive.
   
Is there any way to extend the CMTS coverage to this areas by using
PTP IP radio links?
   
Many Thanks,
   
Javier
   
   
   
** 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/
   
  
  
  
  
   
  
   ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at
   ISPCON **
   ** ISPCON

Re: [WISPA] Locustworld meshes?

2007-09-16 Thread Clint Ricker
Allen,
So it is just a matter of switching interfaces to a second interface
when the best interface goes down (if ever).  OSPF is pretty good at
that.  Not arguing, just curious about all that. 

To a large degree, you are right with your observations.  If you
engineer very good point to point links, then there is little
advantage to using something more than OSPF.  The main advantage to
using something else is if you, for whatever reasons (a few
legitimate, a few not legitimate) engineer your links knowing that
you'll have at least some degregation (ie packet loss).

_IF_ you engineer the network to deliver 0% packetloss 99.9% (or
99.99% or whatever) on all of your links, then there really is not
much advantage to using something other than OSPF.  Generally in such
environments (not always, but still, generally), then any link
problems would be an up/down scenario--failed AP, whatever, and OSPF
would provide just as good of re-routing as anything else...

Let's look, though, at the less than 100% scenario with some example
numbers.  If you engineer your network to deliver 0% packetloss 98% of
the time and decide to tolerate 5% packetloss the other two percentage
of the time, then using OSPF, 2% of the time, is just as likely to
send traffic down the pipe that has 5% packet loss when a perfectly
good pipe with 0% packet loss was available...

The feature is that OLSR (or Meraki, or whatever) switches when the
link is up, but experiencing some packet loss.  You are right on,
though, that if you do really good wireless engineering, this doesn't
provide that much of a benefit.  And, to restate a little bit, if you
are going to the expense of getting sector antennas and aiming and so
forth, then you are likely going to engineer a clean path, so, yes,
the advantage of using Meraki's + directionals is, at least from a
network traffic standpoint, fairly moot, or actually a detriment,
since you can't really tune the wireless settings on Merakis without a
lot of trouble.  (Cost / relatively turnkey management, perhaps may be
attractive to some still).

I tend to think the Meraki's are mostly interesting in environments
where it is either impracticle or economically unfeasable to engineer
each and every wireless link--think entry-level residential MDU
settings, where your $20-$30 per month can't cover sending an engineer
out to each unit, ensuring good wireless shots, etc..., etc..   Their
answer, for better or worse, is just throw enough units in there that
can more or less sort the mess out for themselves.

Clint Ricker
-Kentnis Technologies

























 Please follow my train of thought for a second.  When using
 directional antennas, then a bit of aiming is required right?.  But
 the benefits are as you say.  Now such antennas need to be mounted
 right?  So this is a fixed wireless mesh we are talking here, not a
 mobile mesh with antennas in motion. What makes this possible is
 multiple radio systems (3, 4, even 5 radios).  So given all this,
 how would Meraki provide anything that say Mikrotik couldn't
 do?  Choose paths?  There isn't much to choose when using directional
 antennas on each end (PtP)  You know what's there already, one radio,
 the other end of the link.  So it is just a matter of switching
 interfaces to a second interface when the best interface goes down
 (if ever).  OSPF is pretty good at that.  Not arguing, just curious
 about all that.  Also I'm brainstorming possible configurations with
 an omni on one end and a directional on the other.  I need a couple
 of good cheap directional 900MHz antennas for some testing.  I have
 two omni's already and wasn't too impressed going omni to
 omni.  Signal started to drop off after about a quarter mile  or so,
 and that isn't going to cut it.

 Allen

 

 ** 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/



** 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

Re: [WISPA] Locustworld meshes?

2007-09-16 Thread Clint Ricker
Chris,
I'd imagine they would work fine, but keep in mind that you have about
0% control over the wireless settings beyond channels (for all
practicle purposes)..  In my mind, if you are going to engineer a
link, getting something that will give you really good control over
the link engineering is desirable.

The Meraki's are designed, in the end, to be used in environments
where you do little to no link engineering.

Clint Ricker
-Kentnis Technologies



On 9/15/07, chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Id be interested to see how they worked with high gain directional
 antennas.  With the proper antennas you could pick up some penetration,
 help pick through noise and change polarities.  Anybody used the Meraki
 boxes this way?

 Chris

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
 Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 10:08 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Locustworld meshes?

 Well, I disagree, in a hippocritical way..

 What Meraki has done is package and make it painlessly easy and low cost
 for
 any joker in town to spend $100 a house and destroy the RF environement
 accross town, with noise generating Omnis, without a clue on the
 engineering
 that needs to go behind it.
 The good news about the other common Mesh Boxes that were $4000 a shot
 (Moto, Tropo, etc) is it kept the MESH boxes in the hand of
 professionals
 (if you call Muni network guys- Professionals?)  Ventures like Meraki,
 scare
 the pants off me, regarding the health of this industry.
 Locust MEsh on the other hand, is Open Source Software designed to
 empower
 developers to go to work to make MESH gear. Sure its OPEN, but the
 klearning
 curve is still there, detering individuals that did not have atleast a
 certain level of minimal technical competence.

 With that said, I'll have to Buy and Try some of those Meraki's, I see
 all
 sorts of applications for them, that have now become affordable to try
 :-)
 Could possibly save me tons of money.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message -
 From: Steve Stroh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 6:44 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Locustworld meshes?


  Carl:
 
  Thanks :-) I rest my case.
 
  Steve
 
  On 9/14/07, Carl Shivers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  We are using Meraki at a local ballpark, the zoo and a river walk
 area.
  The
  ballpark has 1 gw node and 4 mesh nodes. The zoo has 1 gw and 1 mesh
  node.
  The river walk area presently has 2 gw nodes and 8 mesh nodes. This
 will
  be
  expanded to 3 gw nodes and 17 mesh nodes.
 
  It is very easy to deploy using the Meraki system dashboard.
 
  P.S. I am not a Meraki sales person.
 
  --
  Steve Stroh
  Editor / Analyst, Stroh Publications LLC
  425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com
 
 
 
 
  ** 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/
 
 
  --
  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.19/1008 - Release Date:
  9/14/2007 8:59 AM
 
 

 
 

 ** 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/

 

 ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at 
 ISPCON **
 ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San

Re: [WISPA] Locustworld meshes?

2007-09-15 Thread Clint Ricker
The OLSR wikipedia page doesn't do a very good job of analyzing the
strengths and weaknesses of OLSR.

The big problem with OLSR is that it's fairly new, immature, and not
widely used or supported (mainly open source roll your own solutions
and StarOS are the only ones that I know of off the top of my head
that use it).

Still, why it is attractive... (or could be if more common / standardized)

Yes, OLSR does push routing tables to all devices (as does OSPF and
BGP)...I call that a feature, not a flaw.  Link-state (ie OSPF and
BGP) protocols are much better than distant vector (ie RIP) simply
because routers will make much better decisions if they can see the
entire network at once instead of just what the next node is
reporting.  Sure, that does take more memory and CPU, but the
alternative is much worse...  There are some theoretical other
approaches, but nothing that, as far as I know, is more than a gleam
in the eye of some grad student.

The OLSR page failed to mention the main reason why OLSR is
theoretically attractive over OSPF--link state quality (there has been
some noise about adding this onto OSPF, but, it's largely just noise
at this point and nothing that one could really implement).

In other words, OLSR (technically via an extension) has the ability to
choose routes based not just on link speed, load, link state (is it up
or down), but also on how little packet loss is being experienced
across the link.  So, with OSPF, a 10Mb/s interface that is has no
packet loss will lose out to a 100Mb/s interface that has some
packet loss (as long as the packet loss doesn't down the interface
or is the result of load, which can also be calculated).  Which, is
great for wired connections, where you're dealing with very low bit
error rates and so forth.  One wired Ethernet link is, pretty much
100% of the time, pretty much identical to the next.  Wireless, of
course, does have a wider variance.  OLSR performs rudimentary packet
loss calculations across the links and takes this information into
account to give preference to good links over not so good links.

http://www.olsr.org/docs/README-Link-Quality.html is a good writeup on this...

OSPF is good for wireless if you are using very well engineered links
(think nice point to point connections).  So, if you are deploying
mesh simply as a way of getting some redundancy in a network, then
OSPF is definitely good.

For some situations, though, the point of doing wireless mesh is that
you make up for quality with quantity.  Mesh takes the concept that,
to some degree, multiple less than perfect links can, in aggregate,
be as reliable as one very solid link...so, if you're going block by
block in a city (for example), you may realize that some of your links
will be problematic, at best.  This is especially true among community
wireless networks where your links are based on volunteers, not on
design per-se.  If that is the reason why you are using a mesh
topology, then you would ideally need something that can differentiate
based not just on speed and state of a link, but also on the quality
of the connection of the link.  Still, it is important to note that
there are other problems associated with mesh that don't necessarily
have anything to do with a routing protocol per-se; relying on
multiple unreliable links to synthisize a reliable connection is
problematic on other levels, since, if your network topology changes
pretty frequently, you'll get packets coming in out of order and so
forth...



Clint Ricker
-Kentnis Technologies


** 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] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-13 Thread Clint Ricker
Dustin from one of the WISPs down in Florida related a couple of years
back the following solution that had worked for him in such
situations:

1. Go to the offending provider
2. Relate to them that, if they proceed, they will drive your customers away
3. After which point, you will have nothing better to do with your
wireless gear than to turn it around and blast their APs.

Is there legal recourse?  Perhaps, but civil would be the only way
that I can see...not to mention that time / expense / trouble spent in
such a pursuit is not to be understated.  See a good telecom lawyer if
you decide to head down that route; if you are having a major problem,
then the money spent getting their viewpoint on the matter is worth
it

A well drawn up cease and desist letter from a good attorney (if you
are out in the boonies, don't use a local guy, pay for a telecom
lawyer).  It is probably bluffing because I doubt you have the
resources for a full on litigation, but, then again, they probably
don't either...

Remember, one of the liabilities of unlicensed is, well, that it is
unlicensed.  Which means you don't actually have rights to anything.
Which means, as is FCC policy, that take interference is policy...

There are reasons why companies are bidding in the GDP of a small
country to get licensed over unlicensed



On 9/12/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Issue is that if you are using legal 2.4 equipment and the new guy is
 using legal 2.4 equipment, the fcc is not going to get involved.

 or any unlicensed frequency

 Matt Liotta wrote:
  No need to get into complicated legal territory. If you can prove to a
  jury that a company is not complying with FCC rules in a way that is
  interfering with your business then you can certainly win a tortuous
  interference suit against the company in question regardless of whether
  the FCC will commence enforcement. Additionally, you should immediately
  send the company a cease and desist letter with a deadline. After the
  deadline you file a compliant with state court and ask for an injunction
   to have the court force the company to cease their interference. A
  couple hours of your attorney's time should be able to get both done. If
  you have to litigate the hours will go through the roof.
 
  -Matt
  
 
 
  ** 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/

 

 ** 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/



** 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] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-13 Thread Clint Ricker
Let me clarify what I was trying to say; if it came across the wrong
way, please excuse my irresponsibility of posting at 3:30 in the
morning and not necessarily being as coherent as I may like to have
been.

To some extent, this is a common issue for all sorts of
businesses--not just WISPs.  Most SMB organizations (be it Rotary,
chambers, trade organizations, or likewise) have a heavy emphisis on
what can best be summarized by fair business practices.  (Rotary's
is it fair is a good example)

While some may point to this as a moral issue (which it is to some
degree), I tend to view this as simply good business practices.  While
it is not necessarily the most intuitive concept to some new business
owners, most people who have been in business for a while learn that
engaging in unfair business practices ultimately hurt themselves in
the long run and are often not even a good ideal from a
fiscal/business sense.  (That isn't to say that some people don't
profit from this, but by and large, most people suffer).

For example (I am in the process of moving), one of the lenders I have
been shopping at for a mortgage has been very insulting towards his
competition.  While, on the surface, I suppose he feels that he is
advertising himself as better; most customers take from the
experience that lenders are generally a corrupt bunch.  Bad mouthing
your competition, in the end, bad-mouths the industry as a whole and
makes it harder for anyone to get customers in the future.  I
generally have a bad feel for real estate agents for just this reason;
as such, when selling my house, I did a for sale by owner.  This is
because I've heard enough unprofessional/malicious comments about
various real estate agents from other agents that I've generally
gotten the idea that I don't have good odds of getting a reliable
agent...

In any case, what I was relating was not a plan of action, but a brief
outline of a conversation that was related to me.  New businesses, of
all sorts, sometimes do have to be explained some basic principles of
doing business...a lot of this is general (ie the basic rotary/chamber
stuff), some of it is industry specific (interference on unlicensed
spectrum).  In the end, the point of the conversation is to make it
clear that a good business culture is the only culture in which
ANYONE can build a business model.  In the case of WISPs, the only way
ANYONE has a business model is for EVERYONE to participate in a
culture of trust and cooperation--noise is much easier to cause than
signal.  If a new upstart has the short sighted vision that knocking
off the competition using malicious tactics will gain them customers,
explaining to them that, in such an environment, no one has any
reliability on their business model may be in order.

BTW, for the record, I don't advocate actually knocking off, or
(tactily or otherwise) threatening retaliation...one, it removes any
and all opportunity of legal recourse, two, it is unethical, and
three, it is generally bad business practice.  However, a face to face
conversation explaining that this is really in no ones best interest
be in order, and, if conducted tactfully and in the right spirit, may
achieve what legal action may not be able to do.  This is, in my mind,
not too different from one competitor maliciously maligning
another--the first option is to be professional, take them out to
lunch, and discuss it civilly (not threatening to malign them back,
but explaining that they are damaging the integrety of their
profession and, subsequently, pushing customers to explore other
routes.

If a customer has a problem with a WISP not being able to deliver good
service, they often will look for a hard-line replacement, not a
competitive WISP.

Competition is a funny thing, since, there is either an enviroment
where WISPs are viable, or there isn't.  This is true for any type of
business.

I hope this clears this up; again, for the record, I wasn't advocating
retalitory strike or even really threatening a retalitory strike,
but simply having a conversation explaining that there is no
win-lose situation based on malicious business practices, simply, in
the end, lose-lose.

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies







On 9/13/07, Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Clint,

   You were doing fairly well leading this thread until you stumbled (or
 smooth fell down) on point #3. If a WISP were to act/re-act in a fashion
 such as that it would elicit several consequences:


 1. Whatever chance the offended WISP had at legal recourse is now defunct
 and irrelevant. It is the same as throwing in the towel.  It is comparable
 to complete surrender and admission to defeat in the industry that he had
 chosen. It is admission and belief that the other guy is better than I am
 and that is a tough pill to swallow.

 2. It now opens the original offended WISP to legal battles and lawsuits
 himself by the originator of the noise. If the WISP turns his AP's around
 that means he no longer has

Re: [WISPA] IP Assignments

2007-09-12 Thread Clint Ricker
There is some theoretical problems; I've not seen it, though, and
have had to announce /24's on a different provider for remote pops in
the past.



On 9/12/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I guess that's a good point.  I may be able to get it, but will it be
 routable?


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


 - Original Message -
 From: Allen Marsalis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:07 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] IP Assignments


  At 02:24 PM 9/12/2007, Mike Hammett wrote:
 I'm not sure when it was changed, but you need one less bit of address
 space to get your own, direct allocation.
 
 http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four222
 
 You now only need two /24s to request your own /22 from Arin.
 
 
  Yeah but will everyone route a /22??  I am no routing guru but in the old
  days, you had to have a /19 for sprint to route it for instance.  I bought
  a /20 a couple of years later and had no problems out of Sprint or anyone.
  Perhaps today's routers have so much memory, the BGP views fit with no
  problem.  I remember back when 64M would do the job. Then 256M, etc.  But
  its news to be if a /22 is fully accepted in all router tables.  Wow only
  here for a couple of days and learning stuff already.  :)
 
  Allen
 
 
  
 
  ** 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/
 

 

 ** 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/



** 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] You're all going to lose ( I hope not)

2007-09-11 Thread Clint Ricker
I realize ideas like this aren't a one-size fits all.  Geography,
topography, and so forth sometimes makes this uneconomical.

I will say, though, that usually independent ISPs (non-Wisps) that
have gone down this route, whether for server aggregation, bandwidth
aggregation, DSL aggregation, helpdesk aggregation, or whatever
usually are happy with the results as it often makes a marginal
business case viable.

There are other advantages as well to working aggressively with each
other and peering with each other.  Most of the ones above are
cost-saving measures, which I'm not always a fan off--independent ISPs
sometimes are too fanatacal about cutting costs and not fanatacal
enough about growth...

Still, there are other advantages.  As some/most of you know (and
already do this sort of thing), your most profitable and best
businesses are usually more established businesses with multiple
locations.  A lot of you are limited by aggressively targetting these
businesses because you have a limited geographical area...and most of
these business prefer having a single vendor for this sort of stuff.
The more you make deals with each other in terms of being able to go
between the networks, the more you can do this sort of thing.

In aggregate, Independent ISPs have quite an impressive footprint, and
can offer an on-net (as a whole) offering to larger business clients
that is rivals many of the national guys.

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies






On 9/11/07, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Forrest W. Christian wrote:
  Clint Ricker wrote:
  Not to be overly provocative here, but why are you paying $60/meg?
  I'd be more than happy to pay less.   Please let me know where I can buy
  a DS3 or OC3 delivered somewhere within my footprint or at most only a
  couple of radio hops away for less than the $50-75 I'm paying now (right
  now I have two full DS3's - one is around $50/meg and the other is
  around $75/meg).
 
  If you're domain is correctly registered, you're ~50 miles from
  Atlanta.   I'm ~400-600  miles from Salt Lake City, Seattle, or  Denver
  - take your pick.   I'm *lucky* to get it at $50/meg.   If I was paying
  loop, it would be more.
 
 Montana is tough and you probably know you already have the best deal
 going from a traditional approach. I don't know if a non-traditional
 approach would work either, but here is an idea anyway.

 You are correct that doing radio hops to the closest major market is a
 good way to go, but in your case the mileage is just too high. How far
 away are you from Microserve, which is in Idaho. I believe they serve
 Boise, which probably has cheaper bandwidth. Is it feasible to backhaul
 your network to theirs? In areas with mountains like yours you can go a
 long way with 5.8/6Ghz.

 -Matt
 

 ** 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/



** 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] You're all going to lose ( I hope not)

2007-09-11 Thread Clint Ricker
Not to mention that you can possibly use these intermediate hops as
pops for future expansion


On 9/11/07, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Forrest W. Christian wrote:
  Knowing what I know about the territory out here is that when Microserv
  said (paraphrasing) 200 miles is the cheap bandwidth, they probably
  mean Salt Lake City.   It's 200 miles from us to him, and just guessing,
  there would probably be around 8-10 hops to get to him, if we got the
  *right* sites.  At easily $200/month per site - since these are prime
  sites, this adds $2K of backhaul just go get to Idaho Falls.  Then you
  have to add the 10 hops @20K/hop worth of radios (200K), and pay for
  them over 36 months (~6K/month), so doing this you end up paying
  8K/month for loop, which on a OC3 would equate to $51/meg of loop
  costs.   That's more than I'm paying for bits delivered *here*.
 
 I don't know the area, but 8-10 hops sounds high to me as that is only
 20-25 miles a hop. Regardless, your ~6K/month figure would go away after
 3 years using your numbers dropping your total outlay to 2k/month
 getting you to $13/meg. Essentially, the difference between buying and
 renting. Additionally, you may be able to use those additional sites to
 expand your market.

 Again, Montana is tough; I was just using you as example for others who
 aren't in such a tough position.

 -Matt
 

 ** 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/



** 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] You're all going to lose ( I hope not)

2007-09-10 Thread Clint Ricker
I agree with Rick and Mike...the basic model of providing marginal
speeds (less than 2 Mb/s) at above market prcies is unsustainable over
the next few years.

I'm not a WISP (I do a lot of consulting for various service
providers--telcos, MSOs, independent ISPs of all sorts).  It works in
ultra rural where there isn't much competition.  It also works in
areas where the WISP is really well executed and the competition can't
do basics (like deliver bandwidth).  It also works by targetting
niche markets of various sorts.

Still, I do worry about the lot of you who are providing single play
or dual play access on a broad residential basis over the next few
years...

Just a few notes (industry observations, not necessarily relevent to
specific providers)...
1. The days of cable promising 10Mb/s and delivering 80Kb/s are pretty
much over...most of the major MSOs (Cox/Comcast/TW) have gotten MUCH
smarter about this and about their networks and, contrary to various
misunderstandings about the nature of the shared cable network
topology, there is inherently nothing that prevents the technology
from delivering 10Mb/s or more to their customers.  BTW, that was
DOCSIS 2.0; 3.0 is coming down the pipe and delivering 100Mb/s...

2. I used to be heavily involved in an Independent ISP for several
years, up until last year.  About 5-10 years ago, the independents had
better service, better customer service, and, all around, a better
value.  I don't think that's true anymore.  The large guys have gotten
MUCH better and have productized their service to the point of it
being a simple, straightforward, relatively high quality commodity
while a lot of the independents have not really evolved around
delivering a simple, dumb pipe with limited capacity and (the major
problem) have not really improved business practices or workflows.
Most independetnts are (more or less) running the same business in
2007 as in 2002...

I think most of the independents got so in the habit of talking about
how stupid Bell was that they didn't notice that Bell started getting
its act together and clobbering them...your competition may be dumb
now, but that may not always be the case.

3. Right now, typical usage is below 1Mb/s.  (In other words, for most
customers, less than 1 Mb/s is sufficient given typical usage and
current Internet applications).  However, customers don't necessarily
understand that 10Mb/s is not necessarily 10x as good as 1Mb/sLook
at the low uptake on the muniFi market...

4. Again typical usage is currently below 1Mb/s.  That WILL
change...many countries have 100Mb/s or more already; the US will be
there over the next few years as well.  The applications will evolve
once there is a sufficient end-user markert that has connections that
can use 100Mb/s.  Think of the evolution from dialup to broadband; the
same thing will happen over the next 2-4 years.

5. (This is my main concern for WISPs).  A lot of you guys are trying
to compete in the residential (ie under $50/month) market providing
just Internet access.  This means that you are competing against
providers who are able to offset the capital cost of providing the
connection over multiple service (data, voice, video).  In the end, I
don't think it is sustainable to competitively build networks with an
ARPU of $40/month against competitors who get 2.5x-4x (100-150 ARPU)
that amount.

Just a few observations...I think the answer lies in
1. Reinvesting in more robust networks
2. Targetting niche markets--ie going after $200/month SMB customers
instead of $40 a month residential, targetting various schools, muni
needs, etc...
3. Bundling services--use the same pipe for more services
4. Don't even mention bandwidth in your advertising; market to your
strengths, not your weaknesses...

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies





On 9/10/07, Forrest W. Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Sam Tetherow wrote:
  As ISPs in general I think we are going to have to be able to provide
  for this type of traffic.  P2P is not all illegal movies.  If we want
  to be providers for our community we need to be able to provide for
  the bandwidth hungry applications as well.
 I want to be clear... The limits I was talking about are in the tens of
 GByte/month range.  2Mb/s continous for days.  I don't care whether it's
 P2P or a Web Server, or 100 Audio streams or Open Source .iso's being
 shared by Bittorrent.   The Residential service  we provide for
 $55/month is supposed to be intermittent, not 2Mb/s continuous.   If
 someone wants 2Mb/s continous I'm more than happy to charge them
 $250/month for it.  A typical customer on the $55/month service can
 download 2-3 full length, DVD quality, no additional compression movies
 without me even blinking an eye.   Start sucking (or pushing) 2Mb/s
 continuous, then I get a little irritated.

 To me, the loss of a 2Mb/s continous customer is actually a good thing.
   2Mb/s continuous is almost impossible to provide at $55/month in my
 neck

[WISPA] IPTV

2007-09-10 Thread Clint Ricker
If there was a fairly turnkey solution to providing television service
over your networks (ie IPTV), would you be interested?

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies


** 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] IPTV

2007-09-10 Thread Clint Ricker
Not ready for prime time...?  There's already several hundred thousand
subscribers on IPTV platforms in the US alone, so I'm not sure what
you're waiting for...  what shortcomings are you seeing?

The technology IS being deployed in prime time scenarios already
(ATT, which is not known for being adventuresome with technology is
the biggest, but not the only domestic example; internationally, it is
being deployed much more widely).

The main problem that WISPs face is that you may have to do some
network overhauls to handle that sort of traffic...

When you resell DirectTV (unless they have changed their model since
2005, which is the last I looked at their agreements), it is more of a
referral/outsourced installation crew than reselling.  It does let you
offer triple play to a point, but (again, unless it's changed), you
can't do single bill and you can't really generate any reoccuring
revenue (which, as a service provider, is where your real profit tends
to be)

Although you do have increased costs in doing your own in terms of
network buildout and so forth, you also effectively (if done right,
profitably) subsidize the buildout of a better network

It probably is not quite viable for ultra-rural WISPs because of
really low densities and so forth.  In areas with higher densities
(definitely MDU), it is viable and deployable

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies





On 9/10/07, Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Agreed, but IMO just not quite ready for prime time . yet.  grin

 Best,

 Brad


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Mike Hammett
 Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:23 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV

 IPTV is also the breaking of the traditional TV mold.  You can offer
 thousands of channels from all kinds of different sources.  It doesn't even
 have to be in the traditional channel format.


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


 - Original Message -
 From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:09 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV


  Brad Belton wrote:
  We have (off and on) been looking for the same solution, however we came
  to
  a conclusion years ago.  Why not just re-sell Direct TV or Dish?
 
  For a full channel line-up or in residential settings I would agree with
  you. However, in a MTU the ability to provide channels ala carte to
  multiple customers using IP provides different economics.
 
  -Matt
 
 
 
 
  ** 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/
 

 
 

 ** 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/

 

 ** 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

Re: [WISPA] IPTV

2007-09-10 Thread Clint Ricker
Matt, I'm understanding from you that if there was a good way to do
this, you'd definitely be interested?  Is anyone else out there
potentially interested?

This is an area that I've been working in for quite a while now, and
the technology is there and deployable.

There are two main obstacles, however.
1. Getting programming
2. Upfront costs of deployment (video headend infrastructures are not cheap...)

Both of those are not really issues, but do require a bit of scale
 I'm working on a good platform to be able to do this on a centralized
level that can then support multiple, smaller service providers.  I'm
interested in seeing if this is of interest to a large enough userbase
through WISPs to make it worth the effort in building in support for
those customers...


-Clint Ricker




On 9/10/07, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Brad Belton wrote:
  Correct, we see the same requests.  However, why try re-inventing the wheel
  when DirecTV already has a solution in place?  Every time this issue has
  popped up the client was more than happy to pay the DirecTV price even if
  they only wanted CNN or FOX.
 
 Are you reselling DirecTV now?

  It just didn't seem to make sense (yet) to put additional load on the IP leg
  into a building when the service is already available from the roof where we
  already have rights.
 
 Yes, but then you are running coax to various tenants and various drops.
 If it is a business park then you are putting a dish on each building.

 In our case, we would like to charge them for the channels, but bundle
 the bandwidth usage into their service just like we do VoIP. As they use
 more and more bandwidth it gives the customer incentive to upgrade their
 commit.

 -Matt
 

 ** 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/



** 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] You're all going to lose ( I hope not)

2007-09-10 Thread Clint Ricker
 We provide symmetrical service to our customers.   2Mb/s down and up...
 show me a typical Cable or DSL provider who can do that.  In fact, most
 cable plants are severely limited in the upload direction just because
 of how the return path is configured (it all lives below channel 2).

You can on cable, but it is much costlier in terms of equipment and
bandwidth usage (but is done for some business class connections over
HFC).

Still, for a residential customer, does it really matter?  Personally,
I'd take a 1Mb/s symetrical over a 10Mb/s down, 384Kb/s up, but I'm
quite atypical on my network usage.  For most customers, asymetrical
is perfectly fine, especially for residential...


-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies


** 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] You're all going to lose ( I hope not)

2007-09-10 Thread Clint Ricker
Not to be overly provocative here, but why are you paying $60/meg?

You're a trade organization...make deals with each other, share your
upstream peers, buy in bulk, and get your $60/meg to $30/meg, $20/meg,
or even lower...

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies


On 9/10/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Forrest W Christian wrote:

 we're trying to rid ourselves of exactly the same people that the cable
 companies are ridding
  themselves of - those which expect a full bore pipe for less than it
  costs us to purchase the bandwidth.

 I just had a guy who wanted to sign up but wanted to define what speeds
 I was going to give him and what exactly he was expecting.
 He said, when I buy a 3 meg connection I expect 3 megs all the time.

 I asked him if he thought 3 megs all the time meant that when he hit the
 speed test button, that it was going to come back every single time at 3
 megs or if he meant 3megs all-the-time constantly consuming bandwidth at
 3megs a second.

 He chose 3megs all-the-time constantly consuming bandwidth at 3megs a
 second.

 And he wanted a public ip address and no ports blocked.

 So I asked him if he thought it was feasible for me to buy bandwidth at
 $60+ per meg on a dedicated internet connection and then sell him 3x $60
 for $40.00 per month and then to boot buy him a public ip and configure
 my routers to his specification.

 How long will I stay in business doing that.

 We argued a bit about bit caps and consumer broadband connection verses
 dedicated business class connectivity. I kept my cool and was even keel,
 the guy was getting pissed and disagreeing the deeper I got into
 explaining what I was going to be providing and he was going to be
 buying. Finally I sent him on his way to google and told him he should
 search out comcast and bit caps and give me a call back when he thinks
 he can operate on my network with my terms of service.

 The guy called back, apologized and explained he misunderstood and and
 he expected to pay what he should be paying and would give me a call
 back when he was ready.

 I hooked him up a couple weeks ago and we're both happy.

 He knows the rules. He even offered to pay more for his public ip. I
 didn't and generally don't charge extra for ip addresses. And he knows
 to be reasonable about usage.
 Heck I could care less if he used 50 gigs every now and then, but not
 all-the-time

 Now how to explain it to the rest of the market place is going to be the
 hard thing.

 George
 

 ** 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/



** 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] You're all going to lose ( I hope not)

2007-09-10 Thread Clint Ricker
Yeah...I know... been there, done that.

The cable companies and the bells compete with each other over
millions of dollars of business, and yet can somehow release
similtaneous FCC filings, press releases, position papers, and so
forth.

Most independents don't compete with each other, and yet can't work
out deals to reduce their overhead (some out there do this and do
this quite well)

Matt's post about no one wanting to be the customer is right on as
to the reason...but it's a shame.  There are some that do this and
save thousands or more a monthPride can be expensive...

just a thought.


On 9/10/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I'm paying $150, but I only have 1.  ;-)

 Getting together on purchases of things never really seems to get anywhere.


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


 - Original Message -
 From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 4:18 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] You're all going to lose ( I hope not)


  Not to be overly provocative here, but why are you paying $60/meg?
 
  You're a trade organization...make deals with each other, share your
  upstream peers, buy in bulk, and get your $60/meg to $30/meg, $20/meg,
  or even lower...
 
  -Clint Ricker
  Kentnis Technologies
 
 
  On 9/10/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Forrest W Christian wrote:
 
  we're trying to rid ourselves of exactly the same people that the cable
  companies are ridding
   themselves of - those which expect a full bore pipe for less than it
   costs us to purchase the bandwidth.
 
  I just had a guy who wanted to sign up but wanted to define what speeds
  I was going to give him and what exactly he was expecting.
  He said, when I buy a 3 meg connection I expect 3 megs all the time.
 
  I asked him if he thought 3 megs all the time meant that when he hit the
  speed test button, that it was going to come back every single time at 3
  megs or if he meant 3megs all-the-time constantly consuming bandwidth at
  3megs a second.
 
  He chose 3megs all-the-time constantly consuming bandwidth at 3megs a
  second.
 
  And he wanted a public ip address and no ports blocked.
 
  So I asked him if he thought it was feasible for me to buy bandwidth at
  $60+ per meg on a dedicated internet connection and then sell him 3x $60
  for $40.00 per month and then to boot buy him a public ip and configure
  my routers to his specification.
 
  How long will I stay in business doing that.
 
  We argued a bit about bit caps and consumer broadband connection verses
  dedicated business class connectivity. I kept my cool and was even keel,
  the guy was getting pissed and disagreeing the deeper I got into
  explaining what I was going to be providing and he was going to be
  buying. Finally I sent him on his way to google and told him he should
  search out comcast and bit caps and give me a call back when he thinks
  he can operate on my network with my terms of service.
 
  The guy called back, apologized and explained he misunderstood and and
  he expected to pay what he should be paying and would give me a call
  back when he was ready.
 
  I hooked him up a couple weeks ago and we're both happy.
 
  He knows the rules. He even offered to pay more for his public ip. I
  didn't and generally don't charge extra for ip addresses. And he knows
  to be reasonable about usage.
  Heck I could care less if he used 50 gigs every now and then, but not
  all-the-time
 
  Now how to explain it to the rest of the market place is going to be the
  hard thing.
 
  George
  
 
  ** 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/
 
  
 
  ** 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

Re: [WISPA] IPTV

2007-09-10 Thread Clint Ricker
Brad,
Here's what I'm looking at, and what would generally be involved...

I do a lot of work with cable / video, and, having previously worked
in the independent ISP industry, I'm familiar with both worlds.

One of the major problems that I see that independents face is that
they are trying to build networks getting about 1/2 to 1/3 of the
revenue of the competition--when your competition gets $120 per
customer instead of your $40 (or whatever), it's hard to build a
competitive network and continually stay ahead of the technology
curve.  Many don't and others just take smaller profit margins or try
to leverage other services (like computer support, etc...).  Still,
it's a harder position to be in.

I've started some discussions about getting content.  It's really a
matter of #s--very few of you have enough subscribers to get very far;
but, if I get enough people interested (I'm talking to some rural
telco's that want to get into this so that's coming along), then I
should be able to push that through, according to the conversations
that I've been having.

Initially, support for WISPs would be fairly limited to either
MDU-setups and limited business programming (like what Matt's looking
for).  This is because wireless is a VERY challenging medium to deal
with since it is basically broadcast and doesn't offer much capacity
to boot (so, the worse of cable HFC and DSL in one package).  It is
also because content providers are particular about protecting their
content, and that...is a challenge since wireless does not necessarily
have the best reputation (kinda funny for an industry built around RF
and satellite).  Still, bandwidth for wireless gear is getting better,
compression is getting better, and, given the right wireless gear and
network design, it is definitely possible to deliver a good IPTV
service to customers.

Clint Ricker
-Kentnis Technologies




On 9/10/07, Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Please expand a bit more on your offering.  Inquiring minds want to know.

 Best,


 Brad


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Clint Ricker
 Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 9:31 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV

 Not ready for prime time...?  There's already several hundred thousand
 subscribers on IPTV platforms in the US alone, so I'm not sure what
 you're waiting for...  what shortcomings are you seeing?

 The technology IS being deployed in prime time scenarios already
 (ATT, which is not known for being adventuresome with technology is
 the biggest, but not the only domestic example; internationally, it is
 being deployed much more widely).

 The main problem that WISPs face is that you may have to do some
 network overhauls to handle that sort of traffic...

 When you resell DirectTV (unless they have changed their model since
 2005, which is the last I looked at their agreements), it is more of a
 referral/outsourced installation crew than reselling.  It does let you
 offer triple play to a point, but (again, unless it's changed), you
 can't do single bill and you can't really generate any reoccuring
 revenue (which, as a service provider, is where your real profit tends
 to be)

 Although you do have increased costs in doing your own in terms of
 network buildout and so forth, you also effectively (if done right,
 profitably) subsidize the buildout of a better network

 It probably is not quite viable for ultra-rural WISPs because of
 really low densities and so forth.  In areas with higher densities
 (definitely MDU), it is viable and deployable

 -Clint Ricker
 Kentnis Technologies





 On 9/10/07, Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Agreed, but IMO just not quite ready for prime time . yet.  grin
 
  Best,
 
  Brad
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Mike Hammett
  Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:23 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV
 
  IPTV is also the breaking of the traditional TV mold.  You can offer
  thousands of channels from all kinds of different sources.  It doesn't
 even
  have to be in the traditional channel format.
 
 
  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions
  http://www.ics-il.com
 
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:09 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV
 
 
   Brad Belton wrote:
   We have (off and on) been looking for the same solution, however we
 came
   to
   a conclusion years ago.  Why not just re-sell Direct TV or Dish?
  
   For a full channel line-up or in residential settings I would agree with
   you. However, in a MTU the ability to provide channels ala carte to
   multiple customers using IP provides different economics.
  
   -Matt
  
 
 
  
  
   ** Join us at the WISPA

Re: [WISPA] BGP Engineering

2007-09-05 Thread Clint Ricker
What do you mean by not routing friendly?  Do you mean that they don't
provide BGP peering?  Or, that they just don't really know what they are
doing...

Unless you have multiple upstream connections, there is (rarely) any reason
to do BGP peering yourself.  If you have your own ARIN block, most upstream
providers will announce it for you and route the traffic accordingly.

Where are/would you be doing the VPN?  This is an expensive route, since it
does mean that you are paying twice for traffic--once through your upstream
provider, again through the VPN endpoint (depending on your routing this
could actually be triple).  Especially given that you seem to be in close
proximity to Chicago, your best value / option is likely to get Internet
access in a data center and then get some sort of loop without Internet from
the data center to your network...  Most likely some sort of metro-ethernet
product is usually the most cost effective if you're dealing with 100Mb/s or
more, smaller connections change the economics drastically...

Clint Ricker
-Kentnis Tecnologies


On 9/5/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 My upstream isn't very routing friendly.  They're also having some issues,
 but I believe they'll have it figured out soon.  A VPN over their network
 solves all the current issues.

 Being as though they aren't routing friendly (and don't want to change
 their whole network to be routing friendly), they are flexible enough where
 I imagine that I could put a box at their upstream and VPN over their
 network so I can do BGP.

 Thoughts?


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


 

 ** 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/



** 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] BGP Engineering

2007-09-05 Thread Clint Ricker
Call me stupid, but, don't screw around with your upstream.  Get good
reliable connections, don't get fancier than you have to, don't bother with
VPNs, etc...

If you want to save money and you have scale (minumum 10-25Mb/s, 100Mb/s
definitely), get the bandwidth directly from a carrier and supply your own
pipes.  But, go with a good carrier and get a good pipe.

If smaller, at least get good upstream providers.  I can't imagine a cost
cheap enough to entice me to start jerryrigging the connection that I'm
relying on for my entire customer base

You spend too much time and money building your network and your customer
base to kill it over a few hundred a month.  If you're too strapped for cash
to get good connections, spend the time growing revenue (ie
sales/marketing) rather than cutting costs...

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technology


On 9/5/07, Jeff Broadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Would it be possible to bridge to the remote box on the provider's
 provider's NOC?

 Jeff

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of David E. Smith
 Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 11:37 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] BGP Engineering

 Mike Hammett wrote:
  They don't route at all anywhere and have no intention of it.

 They have to route something somewhere, unless their whole network is one
 big flat thing, and that just makes me want to weep.

 If you're presently using their IP addresses, they probably don't want to
 BGP-peer with you for a host of sound technical reasons. If/when you have
 your own IP allocation, they may well reconsider that position.

  I was getting ready to get my own ASN so I could bring in a second
  upstream for the redundancy and increased performance that BGP
  provides.  I don't yet have my own block as I can't yet justify
  something that big.

 As long as you're planning to do so in the near future, that shouldn't be
 a
 problem. (The current ARIN guidelines basically say you have to either be
 multihomed, or intend to be multihomed in the next thirty days, to get an
 ASN. They're pretty serious about that, so have plenty of paperwork
 ready.)

 Just to avoid weird routing filters and such, it's usually advisable to
 get
 a direct IP allocation at or about the same time. Yes, this means
 renumbering your network. No, it's not fun, but in the long-term it needs
 to
 be done anyway. As long as you're presently using most of a /22 (four
 /24s,
 or about 1000 IPs) that shouldn't be a big deal.

  I
  certainly wouldn't want to pay for anything twice.  I envision the VPN
  endpoint being at my provider's provider, so the only thing between my
  endpoint and my network is my immediate upstream's network.

 Depending on network topology, though, you may still have to cope with
 double-billed traffic.

 Suppose there's a switch somewhere, to which your upstream, their upstream
 (and the rest of the Internet), and your VPN box are all connected. One of
 your customers loads a Web page. The page comes in from the rest of the
 Internet, through that switch, to your VPN box (there's one trip), gets
 VPN'd up, goes back out through that switch (second trip), and across the
 switch to your immediate upstream (there's a third trip).

 If you can get it wired up in parallel with your upstream, so it comes in
 through that switch and goes out to your upstream, you may be able to
 avoid
 that kind of double-billing, assuming you're billed by the bit for traffic
 in the first place. Of course, if they were clever enough to do that,
 they'd
 probably also be clever enough to handle BGP natively and you wouldn't
 have
 to do this whole VPN song-and-dance routine. :)

 David Smith
 MVN.net

 
 

 ** 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/


 

 ** 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

Re: [WISPA] BGP Engineering

2007-09-05 Thread Clint Ricker
So, about $750-$900 per month?

Anyone on the list have a POP in Chicago to share bandwidth (and bandwidth
costs!) with Mike?

You may want to call around again on that.  You can definitely get a quad
bonded T1 up there, I'd imagine for about $1,200 a month; if you have any
good metro E providers, you can probably get 5 megs for about $800 or so
that would be a lot more accomidating than your current setup.

What's the address and npa/nxx of your pop?

Thanks,
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies



On 9/5/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 $150 for a meg, though I've routinely hit 5 or 6 megs.


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


 - Original Message -
 From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 11:00 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] BGP Engineering


  Call me stupid, but, don't screw around with your upstream.  Get good
  reliable connections, don't get fancier than you have to, don't bother
  with
  VPNs, etc...
 
  If you want to save money and you have scale (minumum 10-25Mb/s, 100Mb/s
  definitely), get the bandwidth directly from a carrier and supply your
 own
  pipes.  But, go with a good carrier and get a good pipe.
 
  If smaller, at least get good upstream providers.  I can't imagine a
 cost
  cheap enough to entice me to start jerryrigging the connection that I'm
  relying on for my entire customer base
 
  You spend too much time and money building your network and your
 customer
  base to kill it over a few hundred a month.  If you're too strapped for
  cash
  to get good connections, spend the time growing revenue (ie
  sales/marketing) rather than cutting costs...
 
  -Clint Ricker
  Kentnis Technology
 
 
  On 9/5/07, Jeff Broadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Would it be possible to bridge to the remote box on the provider's
  provider's NOC?
 
  Jeff
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of David E. Smith
  Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 11:37 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] BGP Engineering
 
  Mike Hammett wrote:
   They don't route at all anywhere and have no intention of it.
 
  They have to route something somewhere, unless their whole network is
 one
  big flat thing, and that just makes me want to weep.
 
  If you're presently using their IP addresses, they probably don't want
 to
  BGP-peer with you for a host of sound technical reasons. If/when you
 have
  your own IP allocation, they may well reconsider that position.
 
   I was getting ready to get my own ASN so I could bring in a second
   upstream for the redundancy and increased performance that BGP
   provides.  I don't yet have my own block as I can't yet justify
   something that big.
 
  As long as you're planning to do so in the near future, that shouldn't
 be
  a
  problem. (The current ARIN guidelines basically say you have to either
 be
  multihomed, or intend to be multihomed in the next thirty days, to get
 an
  ASN. They're pretty serious about that, so have plenty of paperwork
  ready.)
 
  Just to avoid weird routing filters and such, it's usually advisable to
  get
  a direct IP allocation at or about the same time. Yes, this means
  renumbering your network. No, it's not fun, but in the long-term it
 needs
  to
  be done anyway. As long as you're presently using most of a /22 (four
  /24s,
  or about 1000 IPs) that shouldn't be a big deal.
 
   I
   certainly wouldn't want to pay for anything twice.  I envision the
 VPN
   endpoint being at my provider's provider, so the only thing between
 my
   endpoint and my network is my immediate upstream's network.
 
  Depending on network topology, though, you may still have to cope with
  double-billed traffic.
 
  Suppose there's a switch somewhere, to which your upstream, their
  upstream
  (and the rest of the Internet), and your VPN box are all connected. One
  of
  your customers loads a Web page. The page comes in from the rest of
 the
  Internet, through that switch, to your VPN box (there's one trip),
 gets
  VPN'd up, goes back out through that switch (second trip), and across
 the
  switch to your immediate upstream (there's a third trip).
 
  If you can get it wired up in parallel with your upstream, so it comes
 in
  through that switch and goes out to your upstream, you may be able to
  avoid
  that kind of double-billing, assuming you're billed by the bit for
  traffic
  in the first place. Of course, if they were clever enough to do that,
  they'd
  probably also be clever enough to handle BGP natively and you wouldn't
  have
  to do this whole VPN song-and-dance routine. :)
 
  David Smith
  MVN.net
 
 
 
  
 
  ** 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

Re: [WISPA] Reverse DNS troubles

2007-09-05 Thread Clint Ricker

 And to hijack this a bit:

 I've got four domains hosted on a box with one IP - is it even
 possible to set up a reverse DNS so that one IP will return multiple
 (or the correct at any given request) domains?


No.

However, remember that MX and SMTP don't have to actually have anything
relating to the domain involved.  So, give the box the name 
hosting.nolimyn.com or something similar, setup the RDNS for the IP address
for hosting.nolimyn.com.

Then, on your other domains, set smtp.domainx.com as a cname for
hosting.nolimyn.com and set the mx record for domainx.com to
hosting.nolimyn.com.


 I'm having the same problem, with spam filters rejecting some emails,
 because the reverse DNS for the IP doesn't return the right domain.
 Or does anyone know of a cheap way to buy extra IP addresses?


That is generally up to your hosting/network provider...However, I can
provide you some extra IP addresses for fairly cheap; contact me off list if
interested.

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies








 Cheers,
 J

 On 9/4/07, Ryan Langseth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Since you are on their network, I would simply relay the email
  through their server,  the lookup will be sent through for server
  which should have a proper rDNS, you may need to set an SPF record
  for the mail server, but that should work  ( I have done it like that
  on a dynamic IP before)
 
 
  On Sep 4, 2007, at 1:59 PM, Jason wrote:
 
   I was afraid of that.  These satellite guys are kind of like an
   onion.  There are layers and layers where no one is sure who to
   work with or where to go.
  
   The ip address space is owned by a company that is three or four
   layers up in the reseller chain (I'm told that they own the dish on
   the other end).
  
   Is there no work-around (like the dynamic ip guys or something)?  I
   hate to get that cheesy anyway
  
   Can you tell I'm desperate?!
  
   Jason
  
   Mark Nash wrote:
   You must deal with whoever is authoritative in that address space,
   probably your immediate upstream provider. Mark Nash
   UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://
   www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message
   - From: Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA
   General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, September 04,
   2007 11:37 AM Subject: [WISPA] Reverse DNS troubles
   Gang, I have started having trouble with my customers email
   getting bounced because other servers are checking the reverse
   dns, which fails to resolve to my domain because my network is
   served by a satellite connection (I'm the epitome of rural). Does
   anyone know of a work-around, or do I have to convince my
   upstream they need to change it to resolve to my domain (which
   may be hard to get to happen.). If I have to work with my
   upstream, how should I go about this / approach it. FYI, they are
   ses-americom.com. The company I purchased the domain through and
   who handles the regular dns lookup (domain to ip) says they can
   not help me because the IP is not in their IP address space.
   Jason
   
   --
   --
   ** 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/
   -
   --- ** 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/ --- AV  Spam
   Filtering by M+Guardian - Risk Free Email (TM) ---
   --
   --
  
   ** Join us

Re: [WISPA] In support of legal operation

2007-09-04 Thread Clint Ricker
Zack,
WISPA is a trade organization...if you care what it says, then join.  It is
not a business (I'll shop there if you offer better customer service), it is
not a gym member (I'll join if you get this piece of equipment), it is a
trade organization.  It is member run, as all trade organizations are.  In
other words, to influence it, you have to be 1. a member or 2. a LARGE
external entity that is in a position to influence such things (ie the
government).

I'll also say, from experience with these sorts of organizations the money
is irrelevant.  If you are a WISP, then you should be on WISPA.  Period. In
general, you should join every and all available legitimate trade  and
business organizations--it is the cheapest way to give your company a degree
of legitimacy as a startup.  The question isn't a matter of money (if you
have been in business longer than 6 months, definitely a year, and can't
find the couple of hundred for this, then you REALLY should examine your
business model)  It is a matter of time...trade organizations are member run
and are not necessarily democratic in a traditional sense (one member, one
vote).  They are usually democratic in a merit-based sense...whoever is
willing to put forth the time and effort and steer stuff in the appropriate
direction, however, heckling from the peanut gallery (or, in your case, from
outside the stadium) is often ignored.  If you want WISPA to publish a
position, join, DO WORK (not talk), and you'd be surprised at what you get.
This is how trade organizations run...and, regardless of what your business
is, they all run the same.  The people who drive the bus determine where it
goes...

BTW, I did not name the discussion a 12 year old level because of the
content in it, but because of the lack thereof.  I called it that because it
quickly degenerated from a discussion that, while misguided in my mind,
originated as a call for an official WISPA policy of FCC certification
into a stupid chest-thumping exercise revolving around pointing fingers at
who is compliant and who is not...as continues to come up again and again
and again.  I don't recall that you were necessarily involved in that, so no
need to feel extra insulted this morning.

It is not smart to discuss matters of legal compliance on a public forum.
Period.  You do not air your industry's dirty laundry in public...  it is
unprofessional and is pretty much a no-no in any industry except,
apparently, among certain members of the independent WISP community.  Can
you imagine presidents/CEOs of manufacturing companies airing on a public
listserv who was not following EPA regulations?  Care to also publish lists
of who took questionable deductions on their IRS filings?  Where does this
stop

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies



On 9/3/07, Zack Kneisley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 John, List.. anyone else really.

 I was trying not to get into a discussion at a 12 year old level. I
 merely
 support anyone who feels that they want to change something, through a
 structured method. Although I agree on this particular issue, making a
 statement  look at our code of ethics does not accomplish that Ralph
 requested.

 Is there no structure in WISPA? Is there no means to petition an
 organization that supposedly represents all wisps to entertain the mans
 request? Is there no sturcture in WISPA that is aimed towards ratifying or
 creating a documents.

 I think what it comes down to is a few simple questions.

 Does a member of WISPA have the right to request such a public stance?
 Does WISPA have a means of debation these requests?
 Is there even a process in place that could lead to a document such as
 Ralph
 requested?

 If WISPA is not open to have a democratic way to represent the individual
 wisps, then this whole debate has no merit. If an individual that comes to
 the table with an idea, getys shutout by one person What type of
 organization is WISPA.

 I've thought of joining WISPA on several occasions, but I have yet to see
 it
 as an organization for WISPS, after all, given this thread, it doesn't
 seem
 that there is not any self governing process to ask for anything. Unless
 I'm
 seriously missing something, there are no processes in place that allow a
 member or non member to bring a topic to the table, and for it to be
 considered as an action that WISPA should take. To myself, WISPA looks
 like
 an organization controlled by a handful of individuals, not by the WISPS
 it
 is supposed to, in its own Code of Ethecs Attempt to represent.

 WISPA's Goals see:http://www.wispa.org/?page_id=6

 6. Political lobbying group – Unified voice for the WISP industry

 How can this be acheived when the discussion turns to name calling and
 comparing the thoughts of others to 12 year olds.


 **
 WISPA, at least make an official statement to Ralph. Either, stating that
 WISPA, (not John), believes that WISPA' ethics statement achieves the same
 goals as Ralphs

Re: [WISPA] Reverse DNS troubles

2007-09-04 Thread Clint Ricker
To see who is authoritative for the address space, run a whois on the
addresses in question...

If they can't/won't help you (which, given the non-standard connection you
seem to be using, is a real possibility), then you're best off running email
and such services either on a colocated basis or an outsourced basis.

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies

On 9/4/07, Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 You must deal with whoever is authoritative in that address space,
 probably
 your immediate upstream provider.

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

 - Original Message -
 From: Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 11:37 AM
 Subject: [WISPA] Reverse DNS troubles


  Gang,
 
  I have started having trouble with my customers email getting
  bounced because other
  servers are checking the reverse dns, which fails to resolve to my
  domain because my
  network is served by a satellite connection (I'm the epitome of rural).
  Does anyone
  know of a work-around, or do I have to convince my upstream they need to
  change
  it to resolve to my domain (which may be hard to get to happen.).
  If I have to
  work with my upstream, how should I go about this / approach it.  FYI,
  they are
  ses-americom.com.  The company I purchased the domain through and who
  handles
  the regular dns lookup (domain to ip) says they can not help me because
  the IP
  is not in their IP address space.
 
  Jason
 
 --
 --
 
  ** 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/
 



 

 ** 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/



** 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] Reverse DNS troubles

2007-09-04 Thread Clint Ricker
Well, sure.  Either get your mail server on IP space that does have RDNS
entries that you can get correctly set or route (via smarthost options)
through providers that do.

On 9/4/07, Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Well, sure.  Either get your mail server on IP space that does have RDNS
 entries that you can get correctly set or route (via smarthost options)
 through providers that do.


 On 9/4/07, Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   I was afraid of that.  These satellite guys are kind of like an onion.
  There are layers and layers where no one is sure who to work with or where
  to go.
 
  The ip address space is owned by a company that is three or four
  layers up in the reseller chain (I'm told that they own the dish on the
  other end).
 
  Is there no work-around (like the dynamic ip guys or something)?  I hate
  to get that cheesy anyway
 
  Can you tell I'm desperate?!
 
  Jason
 
  Mark Nash wrote:
 
  You must deal with whoever is authoritative in that address space, probably
  your immediate upstream provider.
 
  Mark Nash
  UnwiredOnline.Net
  350 Holly Street
  Junction City, OR 97448
 
  http://www.uwol.net
  541-998-
  541-998-5599 fax
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 11:37 AM
  Subject: [WISPA] Reverse DNS troubles
 
 
 
 
   Gang,
 
  I have started having trouble with my customers email getting
  bounced because other
  servers are checking the reverse dns, which fails to resolve to my
  domain because my
  network is served by a satellite connection (I'm the epitome of rural).
 
  Does anyone
  know of a work-around, or do I have to convince my upstream they need to
  change
  it to resolve to my domain (which may be hard to get to happen.).
  If I have to
  work with my upstream, how should I go about this / approach it.  FYI,
 
  they are
  ses-americom.com.  The company I purchased the domain through and who
  handles
  the regular dns lookup (domain to ip) says they can not help me because
 
  the IP
  is not in their IP address space.
 
  Jason
  --
 
   --
 
   ** 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/
 
 
 
  
 
  ** 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/
 
 
  --- AV  Spam Filtering by M+Guardian - Risk Free Email (TM) ---
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  ** 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/
 




** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October

Re: [WISPA] In support of legal operation

2007-09-03 Thread Clint Ricker
All of you are worse than a bunch of 12 year old school girls--on both
sides.  Give it a rest already.

Pretty much, the arguments for being certified speak for themselves.  Some
people make what they feel are educated business decisions to do otherwise.
Fine for them.  It's not the end of the world, and something that most
business do (large business often calculate the cost of compliance versus
the risk/cost of non-compliance and formally decide, on many occasions, to
be non-compliant.)  It is a standard business practice, some of you like it,
some of you don't, but really, knock it off already.  Please.

This is a public listserv...if you are non-compliant and feel that it is a
good business decision to run that risk, than so be it, but have the sense
to shut up about it and minimize your risk.  If you are compliant and
worried about your industry reputation, then have sense also to shut up
about it as well and don't draw any more attention to the matter...  There's
nothing to be gained here so, again, move on...it's a lose, lose situation
for everyone involved in these threads.

I understand there is a closed, members-only list.  If you are truly
concerned about the reputation of WISPA and feel this is important to
WISPA's reputation and efficacy as an organization, than move this junk
there...

In the end, the FCC will care a lot more about you if you represent more
customers (you know, the real reason why they pay more attention to the big
guys than little guys).  Large successful business get a lot more attention
from policy makes than small marginal shops.  Make the decision to be
compliant or not and shut up about it and move on.  It's not that
important.  Stop stroking your egos about following the moral high ground
through upstanding citizenry or following the moral high ground of doing
the right regardless of a bunch of stupid bureaucratic regulations.  I think
all of you have already made the decision, one way or another, no one is
going to convince any one of you of anything.

Move on.  Spend your time building better networks and getting more
customers...get yourself market share, and you'll get the attention, respect
of the FCC and, far more importantly, you'll make more money (which, after
all, I assume you're wanting).   Talk about ways to do that.  Talk about
ways to get customers. Talk about ways to deliver uptime that will keep the
customers.  Talk about ways to deliver more bandwidth and better quality of
service to your customers.  Talk about sharing costs on bandwidth, email
systems, etc... to cut costs and increase profits.  Talk about your navel
hair for all I care--it would be a more productive thread.  I think I've
been on this list for about three months, have seen this thread at least 10
times repeating the same pride-filled nonsense on both sides.  It's
embarrassing to watch, and the tenth time doesn't produce anything that the
first nine did except give some people a forum to pat themselves on the back
and talk about how their way is the best route to take.

If you want to make WISPA a respectable organization, spend your time
getting customers and building better networks, not prattling on and on
about LEGAL MATTERS IN A PUBLIC FORUM...

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies



On 9/3/07, J. Vogel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 It doesn't really help, when attempting to clarify a misunderstood or
 confusing
 statement, to say the same thing over again.

 You asserted, in your posting, that the position of WISPA as stated in the
 code of ethics, did not meet the requirement in your opinion of being the
 official stance of WISPA. You are the one who should clarify just exactly
 how the official written statement contained in the code of ethics falls
 short
 of meeting the bar. If the code of ethics statement cannot be taken to be
 the official postion of WISPA,...

 1. why not?,
 2. what would you propose that would be adequate in your view?

 John

 Zack Kneisley wrote:
  Please expand upon this statement...
 
  
 
  Because you agree that WISPA supports only certified systems through a
  ethics statement, does not conclude that WISPA as a professional
  organization supports the use of only certified systems.
 
  
 
  I do not see how this statement makes any sense. The logic loses me
  about the
  does not conclude part.
 
  John
 
 
 
 
  Ok, I'll be happy to. I'm sorry if the logic in my statement is
 confusing.
 
  -
  1.Because you agree that WISPA supports only certified systems through
  ethics statement,
 
  ***You have stated that WISPA, through its code of ethics, somehow
 assumes
  the stance that it does not condone the use of non-ceritified systems..
  correct?
 
  2.does not conclude that WISPA as a professional organization supports
 the
  use of only certified systems.
 
  ***This does not mean that WISPA take the same position.
 
  -
  I appoligize if I confused you. Is this the official opinion of WISPA

Re: [WISPA] Managed IT Service

2007-08-15 Thread Clint Ricker
I don't see any possible way that you're making any sort of actual profit on
this (or even really breaking even) at this rate, unless you've got some
redicuously cheap labor

Consider this...
If you're doing $40 an hour, and you had a full time person billing 100% of
the time (ie 168 hours per month), then you'll max out for that employee at
about $80,000 of revenueyou then have to pay taxes, mileage, insurance,
etc...

Now, take into account that a single full time employee doing this full time
in reality will never do more than 100 billable hours a month...
This is from experience and even assumes that you're fairly streamlined in
terms of paperwork, supplies, travel routes, etc...

This means, at $40 per hour, you'll only pull in $48,000 per year in revenue
for that full time employeeassuming you have a streamlined operation.
There's no room in there to pay them, pay taxes, pay mileage, pay for their
portion of office space (and other expense), pay for billing, pay for your
time in management, and so forth.

I'd double it as a starting point if you're in a rural market, triple if
you're urban, and probably more for people who aren't regular customers.
Still, a lot does depend on your market and your business model.  Are your
employees knowledgeable?  Do they really know what they are doing on this
stuff, or are they just fumbling through...

Keep in mind, as well, that small business consulting is not too different
from dealing with people in the home construction / repair industry--there
are a lot of people who just walked off the farm, so to speak, and claim to
be in the business (no insult intended, and some of them do well).  They
aren't always the best in terms of quality, and they aren't always the best
in terms of professionalism.  Most businesses that have some sense pay more
to get better quality...in some sense, if you price yourself higher, you
price yourself into the good customers.  You also give yourself the money to
do it well...

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies




On 8/15/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Does this sound fair to all parties?

 My normal rate is $40/hour, with $80/hour for emergencies.

 I charge $150/month to manage a business's network.  This includes 3 hours
 of support.  I also will VPN into the network and ensure that operating
 systems, anti-virus, etc. are updated, which does not consume any
 hours.  Additional support is available at $35/$70 per hour.


 -
 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] Managed IT Service

2007-08-15 Thread Clint Ricker
Just a few pointers about calculating costs and making profit... a lot of
these are learned the hard way by most people starting a business...

1. Employees are expensive.  Employer taxes add on about 15% to the cost of
employing someone, after all is said and done...so, that $42k per year
personl actually will cost you almost $50k a year after taxes.  Also,
employees are demanding folks these days, often wanting all sorts of stupid
stuff like health insurance and so forth.  Typical rule of thumb for
actual cost of employee for most small businesses (that tend to have
pretty lousy benefit packages) is 1.25xbase or higher if they go beyond
basic health and offer life, 401k, etc..., in which case it can push almost
1.35x or even a little more...

2. Employees take a LOT of time.  Remember that most companies (of the
vaguely IT type) often have a manager over groups of 4-8 people, which
should give you an idea of how much time it takes to manage people.  No, I
don't just mean payroll and billing (although both takes more time than you
realize--especially the former once you start dealing with customers that
like getting service more than they like paying).  I mean training, hand
holding, ongoing support, problem resolution, retraining, retraining,
retraining (ie going over stuff again and again until they have procedures
doing pat) and general followup on tasks.  This takes a lot of time, and is
often an expense that gets forgotten.

3. When starting out, structure everything possible so that you can
eventually hire people to take these roles over.  So, calculate costs so
that it is profitable with an employee doing all the work...

4. How are you selling your services?  What is your time as a sales person
worth?  If, as eventually should happen, how much would it cost to hire a
sales person.  Are you selling for free?  Or, does your time spent selling
something have a value...it is a cost...

4. Most importantly, profit is NOT the same thing as owner's salary.
$60k/year in revenue against $50k/ of employee costs + gas + whatever leaves
$10,000 for you (although I think you're underestimating expenses).  This is
NOT profit..  This is your salary...Profit is above and beyond what the
owner makes as a salary (however this is handled). It is important to
differentiate between the owner as employee #1 and the owner as the
owner/investor in the company.

Let's take Bob's WISP for example.  Bob runs a WISP, does it all himself,
and, at the end of the month, after paying all of his suppliers, vendors,
taxes, bribes (joking), and so forth, has $5,000 left over.  What's his
profit?  His profit is $5,000 MINUS his salary, which means that if he
paying himself $60,000, Bob's WISP is LOSING money (remember, Bob's WISP has
to pay taxes on his salary).  So, even though Bob is making $5,000 a month,
Bob's WISPs is losing money.

Now, all that said, are you screwing the customer at $80/hour?
Perhaps...that really depends on how good of service you provide.  I'd check
to see what _good_ IT shops in your area charge for on-site work.  Still,
$80/hour tends to be on the low end of what well run IT shops tend to charge
and, having been around this particular block a few times, is not
unreasonable...even at that price, it takes fairly good management and
fairly low labor costs to have any sort of a profit margins...

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies









On 8/15/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Currently it is only myself, so I pocket 100% of it.  I'll expand upon my
 thoughts not to defend my price, but to say where I'm coming from in an
 attempt to figure out if my current system won't scale or if everyone else

 is just screwing their customers.

 That said, I don't see how all of those things really add up to that much
 money.  At $20/hour, that's just under $42k/year for a full time employee.
 Make that just over $43k after you figure in unemployment, social
 security,
 and Medicare.  I only pay income tax on what I profit, so that's not part
 of
 the equation.

 Office space and use is pretty cheap.  $250 for the whole office, I have
 options on other office spaces in the building.

 Most any problem can be quickly diagnosed and repaired, being able to
 include travel time within the 1 hour minimum.  Otherwise, the $15/hour I
 make for beyond the included 3 hours surely pays for the $5 - $10 in
 mileage
 they would use (until I have my own vehicles).

 Everything is manual at the moment because there just isn't the volume,
 but
 I can't see the minute I spend entering into QuickBooks taking that much
 time or money to bill them, pay the employee, etc.

 There haven't been many things that I've encountered that I haven't been
 able to fix quickly.  I know at least one other person that is about as
 smart as myself and they'd be tickled pink with $10/hour.  I greatly
 prefer
 people that have gained their knowledge outside of formal
 education.  After
 going through college, I would have only hired 2 people

Re: [WISPA] Re: How FCC screwed USA boradband

2007-08-08 Thread Clint Ricker
They also don't talk about who's paying for this magical fiber they keep

 spouting off about.  The cost to install fiber in the ground or on a pole
 far exceeds that mythical $10 rate.  Maybe it's that cheap to a HUGE MTU
 but
 it won't be to most homes and businesses, at least not around this
 country.


Just as a disclosure, I do a LOT of work with fiber network platforms, so
I'm a little biased :)

Still, fiber, for most markets, is the long term solution.  Do people lose
lots of money on it?  Sure...people lose lots of money on whatever they
screw up, whether it is fiber, wireless, stock trading, lemonade stands,
health care, real estate, whatever.  If we're being honest about
profitability, a lot more people are making real money doing fiber than
are making real money with wireless Internet access (by real money, I mean
more than marginal returns, but profit margins that attract big investments
over a long-term basis), and by wireless Internet access I mean broad
installations of generic residential access (since the $40/month price point
was quoted).  Wireless can be quite profitable in a lot of niche markets and
rural markets, but residential wireless does not do terribly well in
metropolitan areas

Anyone who is selling fiber (or really any connection) for $10/month as an
average ARPU is an idiot and will go broke.  Tech support ($1-$2 a customer,
at best) + billing ($1.25 is the established standard for cost of billing)
will eat at least a quarter of that in costs alone, not even counting, well,
the actual infrastructure--which is expensive and requires expensive people
to do on any sort of scale that gets that cost down that low.  $15 dollar
DSL, service, btw, is a loss-leader and is only profitable when one
considers the other revenue involved...(ie phone service, etc...)

For that matter, if the bread and butter of the county over is $40/month
Internet access on fiber, it's a miracle that they are only losing $6
million/year.   Idiots.

Why is fiber so hyped?  Because the average ARPU for a FTTH customer is
about $150/month, by the time you throw in Internet, voice, and data, and,
in the right market, can be much higher.

That translates into $18,000 over a ten year period, contrasted with ~$5,000
for wireless customer over the same period.  That's $13,000 more on a ten
year basis, which makes the extra couple of grand up-front costs a little
more bearable :)  Given much more frequent equipment upgrades and so forth
that is usually necessary with wireless, and fiber can be (if done right)
very attractive

Now, that does depend on a certain population density and scale...so, for
people in the rural and ultra rural market, wireless is the solution.  For
metro markets, I don't think that wireless (as a residential offering) is
going to ever have broad market, but is very good in a lot of niche
markets (One Ring in Atlanta is a good example; correct me if I'm wrong,
Matt, but you pretty much target multi-tenant customers and use wireless
primarily as a backhaul as your business model?).  Still, I do know of some
fairly rural fiber guys out there who make some pretty good money, so it is
doable.

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies





Every notice also, how they tend to whine about how there is no competition,
 then brag about how we need one infrastructure in order to really do
 broadband right?

 They just don't get it.  They are only following the pack mentality that's
 lead to this broadband deficit myth.

 We have $40 100 meg to the home fiber in the next county over.  It's a
 joke.
 The PUBLIC has spent over $130 million and last I knew the program is
 still
 loosing $6 million per year!  But here I am, selling $40 internet on that
 network.  All the while the propagandists are bragging about what a great
 deal that's been for local economic development.  Never a word about $.015
 (not a typo)/kwh electric rates.  Cheap power has always been why
 businesses
 moved to Grant Co.  Think about this for a second.  If you needed fiber
 for
 your data center, why in the world would you put it anywhere but Seattle
 or
 Portland?  Cheap land and cheap power that's why.  They spent a gazillion
 dollars on those data centers, dragging fiber the few miles from I-90 to
 Quincy would be the least of their worries.

 Somedays my head just hurts.
 Marlon
 (509) 982-2181
 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since
 1999!
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
 www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



 - Original Message -
 From: John Oram [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Marlon Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 9:09 AM
 Subject: How FCC screwed USA boradband


  http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2007/073007bradner.html
 
  http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070803_002641.html

Re: [WISPA] Managing your network on the go-go-go!

2007-08-07 Thread Clint Ricker
Well, to chime in late and throw in my two cents...

Don't bother.  Back when I was in that sort of deal, I went down this road a
few times and the reality is that it is not worth it.  (I've done this on
about 6 different devices and none of them are really viable for anything
more than a simple service restart...which I've always been able to phone
in).

Few points, mostly around the screen
1. Do you really want to be editing access lists for BGP or complex config
files on a 2 inch screen with a micro keyboard?  The reality is (from bad
experiences) is that typos are too easy to make with such keyboards and too
hard to catch with the screen...

2. Outage resolution?  Doesn't work...this isn't the sort of environment you
want to be doing diagnostics in...  Reading log files where it wraps 5 times
for each line and shows 3 lines at a time is an exercise in futility.
Switching between hosts is an exercise in futility in this environment.
Simple fact--diagnostics is just bad at worse...

Couple of points: network/system administration should not be done with both
arms tied behind your back--which is exactly the type of environments these
end up doing.  At best, it is slow and frustrating and often involves
overlooking major problems.  At worse, you cause more problems than you
create.  There's not a single network engineer out there who would even
dream of editing BGP in such an environment...

Are you really telling us that things that you can do things on a two inch
screen displaying complex (and lots of!) text with a micro keyboard that
your staff can't do guided by phone?  You may want to re-evaluate who you
hire :)  In any case, doesn't that scare you that you are the only one in
the world who can possibly do this?  Get a good network guy on retainer...
you wouldn't (well, shouldn't) tolerate a single point of failure in your
network; that applies to the administration as well...

At best, get a micro PC (like to OGO) and a cell PCMCIA-based...this doesn't
catch I'm in the bathroom and someone just stole my car, but does cover
about 90% and gives you an environment that will let you get stuff done, not
screw yourself over.

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies



On 8/7/07, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 David E. Smith wrote:
  Ah, but I'm at the baseball game. At best, my laptop's in my car. (If
  I felt like putting up with traffic, that means it's in a nearby
  parking lot, ten or fifteen minutes away, plus however long it takes
  me to find a wi-fi hotspot in an unfamiliar downtown area. Most of the
  time, when I go to Cardinals games, I leave my car about 45 minutes
  away and hop on a train. That still leaves the whole no Internet
  connection problem in addition to waiting for a train, which often
  adds another half hour.)
 
  It's more likely that my laptop is at home, which under ideal driving
  conditions is an hour and a half. Assuming I'm even fit to drive; it's
  a baseball game, and I do like my overpriced watered-down beer. If I
  were gonna drive that far, I'd just drive the extra six minutes it
  takes to get to the office.
 
  And no, I can't phone it in (so to speak...) and have someone else do
  it. Discarding for the nonce the fact that I'm probably the only one
  in the office that can even tell you what BGP means, I'm sure you're
  well aware that, for this kind of troubleshooting, the ability to
  actually SEE what's going on is amazingly valuable, and no amount of
  dude on the phone typing stuff in and reading what happens can make
  up for that.
 
  (Disclaimer: I'm exaggerating a bit, for comic effect, but the point
  remains. First-hand troubleshooting is almost always better than
  second-hand troubleshooting IMO.)
 
 Is it so comical though? You are suggesting that there is a situation
 where there is a problem so important or complicated that only you can
 fix it yet you want to be able to fix it remotely via a cell phone at a
 baseball game. It would appear you are trying to solve the wrong problem.
  Matt, you have some good ideas, but they're not good for me, or for my
  network. I'd love to be able to build some super-duper do-it-all
  widget in-house, but as I'm the only developer here (and that's
  certainly not what it says on my business card), it's not gonna
  happen. The odds of finding a developer who can do all this for less
  than the cost of a handheld gizmo and a couple years of service for
  said gizmo are very nearly zip.
 
 You have convinced yourself of what you need and can't see anything that
 could compare. The problem with your straw man is that no such device
 exists.
  If you've used one of the small portable devices I was asking about -
  actual first-hand experience - and can comment on compatibility, let
  me know.
 
 Yes, I have a Motorola Q with EVDO that is a very effective device. I
 have access to our web-based OSS as well as tons of web applications
 built by the likes of Google et al. I can tell you quite specifically

Re: [WISPA] Business Networking International

2007-07-30 Thread Clint Ricker
I was a member for about a year.  In the end, I left because I felt like
there were more effective ways of marketing, although that really does
depend on the type of business you're running

For those of you who don't know, BNI is a business referral organization
that revolves around weekly meetings where you trade referrals (ie you may
know someone looking to buy a house, in which case you'd refer that person
to a realtor in the group; likewise, if a person ran into someone who was
looking to change ISPs, they'd (ideally) point the business your direction).

A few notes about this:
1. Mostly small businesses (and, on the small side of small businesses)
2. Good way to get small clients; ie DSL-level accounts and computer
repair sort of work
3. Not good if you're trying to win bigger accounts (ie $500/month and
up), simply because the people who usually come to these meetings don't have
the connections (chamber and face to face is much more effective for this).
4. Also only effective if you can/are willing to refer a lot of business to
other members in the group
5. The reality is that most of the value is done behind the scenes and
most good business people are already doing the jist of this program.  In
other words, it's good, perhaps, if you aren't feeling like you've been
effective in setting up synergistic business relationships with other
businesses to swap customers around.  On the other hand, you can save
yourself a lot of time, trouble, money, and be much more effective by just
creating those relationships outside of such an organization...ie start
talking to commercial real estate agents, developers, etc... and set up your
own referral program and pay them commission for successful leads.

Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies






In order for it to really work well, you have to devote 5-10 hours a week.

On 7/30/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Has anyone joined this organization?  How well has it worked out for you?


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


 
 Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know
 your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The
 current Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to
 know your thoughts.

 
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Business Networking International

2007-07-30 Thread Clint Ricker
I guess as a followup, just simply understand that it takes about 5-10 hours
a week.  Ask your local chapter for the statistics on general number of
referrals passed and see if it works for you.  I would recommend doing the
math on the front-end, since, for a lot of service providers out there, it
simply doesn't make sense, even under best-case scenario.  On the other
hand, for other service providers out there, it can make great sense.  A lot
depends on your niche market, ARPU, etc...

In general, it will work well for you if your target customer is a smaller
business with a high ARPU and good margins.  (IE you are doing a lot of
bundled PC support or such).  If you are primarily an access provider with
small margins, it will not be worth the time.

-Clint


On 7/30/07, Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I was a member for about a year.  In the end, I left because I felt like
 there were more effective ways of marketing, although that really does
 depend on the type of business you're running

 For those of you who don't know, BNI is a business referral organization
 that revolves around weekly meetings where you trade referrals (ie you may
 know someone looking to buy a house, in which case you'd refer that person
 to a realtor in the group; likewise, if a person ran into someone who was
 looking to change ISPs, they'd (ideally) point the business your direction).


 A few notes about this:
 1. Mostly small businesses (and, on the small side of small businesses)
 2. Good way to get small clients; ie DSL-level accounts and computer
 repair sort of work
 3. Not good if you're trying to win bigger accounts (ie $500/month and
 up), simply because the people who usually come to these meetings don't have
 the connections (chamber and face to face is much more effective for this).
 4. Also only effective if you can/are willing to refer a lot of business
 to other members in the group
 5. The reality is that most of the value is done behind the scenes and
 most good business people are already doing the jist of this program.  In
 other words, it's good, perhaps, if you aren't feeling like you've been
 effective in setting up synergistic business relationships with other
 businesses to swap customers around.  On the other hand, you can save
 yourself a lot of time, trouble, money, and be much more effective by just
 creating those relationships outside of such an organization...ie start
 talking to commercial real estate agents, developers, etc... and set up your
 own referral program and pay them commission for successful leads.

 Clint Ricker
 Kentnis Technologies






 In order for it to really work well, you have to devote 5-10 hours a
 week.

 On 7/30/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Has anyone joined this organization?  How well has it worked out for
  you?
 
 
  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions
  http://www.ics-il.com
 
  
 
  Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know
  your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The
  current Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to
  know your thoughts.
 
  
  --
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 



Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] America's Internet Disconnect

2007-07-26 Thread Clint Ricker

Hehe... just for a technical clarification, most of the video infrastructure
these days either is or is becoming IP based; the last mile will be the last
part that is converted to IP based in the cable industry because of the
expense of switching out 100 million set top boxes.

The problem isn't IP; the problem is best effort IP where video (which
requires a lot of guaranteed bandwidth in order to not look like your
grandma's home videos) has to compete with everything else out there.

So, just to clarify, IP as a technology is great for video; the Internet, on
the other hand, is pretty lousy...

But, definitely right on the rest--for _most_ uses, a reliable Internet
connection is much more important than a fast connection.  Hence why smart
businesses will often eat the cost of a T1 which has a paltry 1.5Mb/s of
bandwidth.  The even bigger surprise is their utilization of that T1--by and
large (on the T1's I've seen) _peak_ utilization is usually around
100-200Kb/s

It's amazing how far bandwidth goes when you're not bit-torrenting movies :)


On 7/25/07, Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Well said!

Internet is a rotten technology for video.  IP just wasn't designed for
it.
Cable and Sat are great for video.

I honestly don't understand what all of the hubub is about.  I'm about to
put broadband into a development with 1000++ lots.  Almost all are camp
trailers for summer residents.  Those folks don't even have POWER out
there
yet!  But they'll have broadband.  Cheap and, at 1 to 3 megs it'll
probably
be better than what they really get at home.

And why do they want broadband so bad?  So they can stay in touch at work
(could do that with sat access if it was really that big of a deal to
them)
and so they can email pics of the kids to grandma and pa.

We as techs too often think that the world revolves around access.  It
doesn't.  FEW people make a living via the net.  Especially via 50meg
access.  For MOST people in this country the net is a tool!  ONE tool out
of
many.  It makes the job easier, faster and more convenient.  The
difference
in job performance between waiting for fed ex and waiting for an email is
night and day.  The difference between getting that email in 100 seconds
vs.
10 seconds is nothing.  They'll still spend MOST of their time DOING
something WITH the email!

marlon

- Original Message -
From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] America's Internet Disconnect


 What a load of fluff.  Almost 20 paragraphs from an FCC chairperson
 criticizing the current policy and not a single concrete suggestion,
other
 than some vague more wireless and BPL suggestion...

 I'm not necessarily a fan of the direction at the FCC.  Still, I'm not
 really sure that I've seen a smarter suggestion by and large on most of
 their decision (except for the ATT/BellSouth merger and perhaps their
 lack
 of a stance for net neutrality, although that's a complicated issue).

 Is 1.5Mb/s too slow?  Really?  The only application that needs faster
 connections at the consumer level is video; I seriously doubt that an
 extra
 bit of lag on the YouTube videos is really going to be a drag on our
 economy.

 I'm not against faster broadband.  More bandwidth is good and, judging
by
 developments in the cable and wireless industry, the next three years
are
 going to be a watershed point in bandwidth capacity in which we'll see
 typical go from 3 Mb/s - 50Mb/s for urban areas.

 Still, I'm even more puzzled by the criticism of slow broadband on the
 WISPA
 list...Wireless is a very limited technology in terms of bandwidth (on a
 consumer, point to multi-point level).  If anything, you should be
 grateful
 that you're not having to compete against 50 or 100Mb/s fiber
 connections :)

 -Clint Ricker
 Kentnis Technologies





 On 7/24/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 America's Internet Disconnect
 By Michael J. Copps
 Wednesday, November 8, 2006; A27
 America's record in expanding broadband communication is so poor that
it
 should be viewed as an outrage by every consumer and businessperson in
 the
 country. Too few of us have broadband connections, and those who do pay
 too
 much for service that is too slow. It's hurting our economy, and things
 are
 only going to get worse if we don't do something about it.

 The United States is 15th in the world in broadband penetration,
 according
 to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). When the ITU
measured
 a
 broader digital opportunity index (considering price and other
factors)
 we
 were 21st -- right after Estonia. Asian and European customers get home
 connections of 25 to 100 megabits per second (fast enough to stream
 high-definition video). Here, we pay almost twice as much for
connections
 that are one-twentieth the speed.

 How have we fallen so far behind? Through lack of competition. As the
 Congressional Research Service puts

Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's takeonBroadband..

2007-07-26 Thread Clint Ricker

Fiber is definitely higher capacity than coax; you would be stupid to do a
from-scratch coax buildout.  The two main difficulties with coax
infrastructure is
1. It's broadcast--meaning that's a shared capacity, and, technically
speaking, everything that goes to one subscriber goes to all subscribers
(kinda like wireless in a sense).
2. Slow return path.  It's hard to do a large capacity on the return path
simply because the equipment on the subscriber end usually is fairly low end
and has a lot more noise to start out with.  If you amp it up to get more
power (and capacity) you increase the noise way to quickly.

Not really too different from wireless in those ways, just has a lot more
theoretical capacity

Fiber doesn't have any of these problems (although a lot of FTTH
implementations are vaguely broadcast-style as well), and the massive speeds
we see out of fiber are only the beginning.  Still, for the time being,
cable MSOs are in good shape in terms of the actual physical cabling
technology and aren't facing the hard physical limits of copper pair like
the telcos.

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies

On 7/25/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Coax can do 50 gigabit?  Fiber can do a heck of a lot more than that.  A
32
channel DWDM system can currently do 320 gigs with 1280 gigs not far
off.  I
have heard of systems doing more than 32 channels.


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


- Original Message -
From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's
takeonBroadband..


 -- Forwarded message --
 From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:40:19 -0400
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take
 onBroadband..

 I think you missed my point here.  My point is that forcing telcos to
  resell their network layer does absolutely nothing to connect
  additional people.  If I resell ATT DSL to someone on ATT's
network,
  they could have just as easily gotten it from ATT.
 So you think that CLEC's and ISP's have never actually brought the
 Internet or a new service to anyone? That's striking. Yes the footprint
 does not grow, but certainly the penetration does.

 Back when the Internet was new, they were great for this because they
 generally had better customer relationships with the customers.  These
 days,
 Internet is commodity--in almost every case, if they didn't get it from
 the
 ISP or CLEC, they would get it from the cable company or telco.

 And without the revenue from the rented network, how would anyone build
 new facilities?


 Revenue from the services sold on the network through retail options, as
 has
 always been the case...

 Dynamic T1 and Integrated T1 were CLEC inventions.

 VoIP didn't come to the masses from the ILEC's and neither did DSL or
 dial-up.


 CLEC style VoIP is not really all that interesting--in the end, it is
all
 to
 often POTS over IP and leaves out much of what is potentially
interesting
 on
 VoIP.

 Definitely, without the CLEC competition, Internet access would have
 evolved
 in a much different manner.  However, I'm more arguing that the CLECs
are
 more or less irrelevant today (from any sort of policy standpoint)--most
 of
 the market forces really do come down to telco/cable in the metro areas
 and
 wireless in rural markets.  The CLECs were the forerunners in a lot of
 areas--but, by and large, their era of innovation is long over.


  I'm not saying that these aren't decent business models, btw, and
  can't make people some dough.  But, national policy is not structured
  around making sure that an extra couple of CLECs or NSPs are cash
  positive...  running the same old tired copper to the same old
  customers does not increase broadband penetration.
 National policy! HA!  It's about Innovation and Competition.


 In which case, the CLECs only have themselves to blame  :)

 Would we have DSL today if not for Covad/Northpoint/Rhythms? DSL was
 invented in Bell Labs in 1965!
 RBOC's did not want to cannibalize their $1500 T1 revenue. (Then they
 went the exact opposite way).


 Agreed...but that was 1998-2002.  What have they done for us lately?

  Does it hurt the ILEC?  Heh...probably not all that much.  But, are
  CLECs really helping the consumer?  I tend to argue no, by and
  large...why IS CLEC market share so small?  Why are independent ISPs
  have so little market share?
 Clint, I could spend days on this. For you even to ask this, .  it
 almost feels like you are trolling (or do I hear the clinking of ice?)


 I'm honestly not trolling here, although, given the forum, it definitely
 comes across that way.  Definitely, back in the 1990's and early 2000's,
 CLECs drove costs down and drove in new services that Bell had little

Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCCCommissioner'stakeonBroadband..

2007-07-26 Thread Clint Ricker

Yeah, the cost isn't that much higher for the fiber...

Still, typical FTTH deployment uses a network architecture known as PON
(Passive Optical Network).  The wikipedia article on the matter is fairly
accurate, for the interested  (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_optical_network)

PON is basically a broadcast-style design that is not too different than a
cable HFC plant architecture; the same data gets sent to all connected units
by being split out optically at the neighborhood.

PON does save a significant amount of money; lower fiber costs just being
one.  Good fiber equipment (for terminating fiber) is quite expensive
still.   Management/maintenance is the other.  The main disadvantage
(long-term) is the upstream capacity

The alternative designs would run as follows:
1. Each customer has a unique fiber run all the way back to the head end /
co.  This is complicated for a lot of reasons (in terms of line
maintenance), becomes cost proh. quite quickly just on the fiber (it's not
_that_ cheap, even if it's not very expensive).  The biggest problem is that
you have to have a the optical equipment on each end that can cover the
entire span for each customer; this gets quite expensive, of course.

2. Build a single run out to the neighborhood / whatever and then have an
actual router / switch split out from there.  This isn't really much more
expensive, but does require a lot more management and more stuff that can
fail.  This is, however, often done for commercial customers in MTUs.
Doesn't really make sense for resi or small business environment.


-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies

On 7/26/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Yes.

It costs about the same labor to run anything and the material cost
doesn't
vary much either.


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


- Original Message -
From: Doug Ratcliffe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:04 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An
FCCCommissioner'stakeonBroadband..


 But if you're running fiber anyways, isn't the labor cost per mile the
 same
 with single fiber vs. say, 100 fibers in a single cable?  Virtually
 limitless, I would think.

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Clint Ricker
 Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 7:19 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC
 Commissioner'stakeonBroadband..

 Fiber is definitely higher capacity than coax; you would be stupid to do
a
 from-scratch coax buildout.  The two main difficulties with coax
 infrastructure is
 1. It's broadcast--meaning that's a shared capacity, and, technically
 speaking, everything that goes to one subscriber goes to all subscribers
 (kinda like wireless in a sense).
 2. Slow return path.  It's hard to do a large capacity on the return
path
 simply because the equipment on the subscriber end usually is fairly low
 end
 and has a lot more noise to start out with.  If you amp it up to get
more
 power (and capacity) you increase the noise way to quickly.

 Not really too different from wireless in those ways, just has a lot
more
 theoretical capacity

 Fiber doesn't have any of these problems (although a lot of FTTH
 implementations are vaguely broadcast-style as well), and the massive
 speeds
 we see out of fiber are only the beginning.  Still, for the time being,
 cable MSOs are in good shape in terms of the actual physical cabling
 technology and aren't facing the hard physical limits of copper pair
like
 the telcos.

 -Clint Ricker
 Kentnis Technologies

 On 7/25/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Coax can do 50 gigabit?  Fiber can do a heck of a lot more than
that.  A
 32
 channel DWDM system can currently do 320 gigs with 1280 gigs not far
 off.  I
 have heard of systems doing more than 32 channels.


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


 - Original Message -
 From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 1:41 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's
 takeonBroadband..


  -- Forwarded message --
  From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:40:19 -0400
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take
  onBroadband..
 
  I think you missed my point here.  My point is that forcing telcos
to
   resell their network layer does absolutely nothing to connect
   additional people.  If I resell ATT DSL to someone on ATT's
 network,
   they could have just as easily gotten it from ATT.
  So you think that CLEC's and ISP's have never actually brought the
  Internet or a new service to anyone? That's striking. Yes the
  footprint
  does not grow, but certainly the penetration does.
 
  Back when

Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband..

2007-07-25 Thread Clint Ricker

-- Forwarded message --
From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:40:19 -0400
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take
onBroadband..


I think you missed my point here.  My point is that forcing telcos to
 resell their network layer does absolutely nothing to connect
 additional people.  If I resell ATT DSL to someone on ATT's network,
 they could have just as easily gotten it from ATT.
So you think that CLEC's and ISP's have never actually brought the
Internet or a new service to anyone? That's striking. Yes the footprint
does not grow, but certainly the penetration does.


Back when the Internet was new, they were great for this because they
generally had better customer relationships with the customers.  These days,
Internet is commodity--in almost every case, if they didn't get it from the
ISP or CLEC, they would get it from the cable company or telco.

And without the revenue from the rented network, how would anyone build

new facilities?



Revenue from the services sold on the network through retail options, as has
always been the case...

Dynamic T1 and Integrated T1 were CLEC inventions.

VoIP didn't come to the masses from the ILEC's and neither did DSL or

dial-up.



CLEC style VoIP is not really all that interesting--in the end, it is all to
often POTS over IP and leaves out much of what is potentially interesting on
VoIP.

Definitely, without the CLEC competition, Internet access would have evolved
in a much different manner.  However, I'm more arguing that the CLECs are
more or less irrelevant today (from any sort of policy standpoint)--most of
the market forces really do come down to telco/cable in the metro areas and
wireless in rural markets.  The CLECs were the forerunners in a lot of
areas--but, by and large, their era of innovation is long over.



 I'm not saying that these aren't decent business models, btw, and
 can't make people some dough.  But, national policy is not structured
 around making sure that an extra couple of CLECs or NSPs are cash
 positive...  running the same old tired copper to the same old
 customers does not increase broadband penetration.
National policy! HA!  It's about Innovation and Competition.



In which case, the CLECs only have themselves to blame  :)

Would we have DSL today if not for Covad/Northpoint/Rhythms? DSL was

invented in Bell Labs in 1965!
RBOC's did not want to cannibalize their $1500 T1 revenue. (Then they
went the exact opposite way).



Agreed...but that was 1998-2002.  What have they done for us lately?


 Does it hurt the ILEC?  Heh...probably not all that much.  But, are
 CLECs really helping the consumer?  I tend to argue no, by and
 large...why IS CLEC market share so small?  Why are independent ISPs
 have so little market share?
Clint, I could spend days on this. For you even to ask this, .  it
almost feels like you are trolling (or do I hear the clinking of ice?)



I'm honestly not trolling here, although, given the forum, it definitely
comes across that way.  Definitely, back in the 1990's and early 2000's,
CLECs drove costs down and drove in new services that Bell had little
interest in offering.  That was 5 years ago, though.  By and large, the
bells are usually fairly competitive price wise in the business market and
by far the best value out there in the residential / SOHO market.  Now, it
is largely the cable/telco competition that is keeping prices down, not the
CLECs...

I worked for several years at an ISP that did the whole BellSouth DSL NSP
stuff.  The FISPA list, etc...continually trashed BellSouth DSL service and
their poor customer service, and so forth, and espoused the the glories of
independent ISPs, which I largely agreed with until one day when I setup a
friends self-install DSL kit from BellSouth.  It was a very slick automated
installation procedure that was _much_ better than what we were doing.

The Independent ISP community did _way_ too much talking about their own
value and their own great customer service while, by and large, doing very
little to actually improve workflows, improve the customer experience (in
terms of ease of turn up) and way too little time / effort spent actually
selling and marketing.  Simply put, by 2005 the telco offering by and large
was, for most people, a better product.  Again, this isn't a universal
indictment, but a lot of their problems were self-inflicted and not the
result of FCC meddling.  Too much talk, too little action...

Way, way too much time was and is still spent blaming the government and the
evil ILECs and too little time / effort spent actually selling, improving
business operations, and reinvesting in better infrastructure / services.

In the end, the market share for the CLECs and independents is small because
more consumers chose to go with someone else.  Some of the better-run ones
that actually do have a compelling product

Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband..

2007-07-24 Thread Clint Ricker

I'll duck after this post, but I by and large tend to agree with the basis
of the article.

Scottie, exactly what regulation would you recommend?

What has regulation solved in the past 11 years?  By and large, I've not
seen a single bit of FCC regulation that has had a net positive impact for
getting access to the consumer, especially post 2000 (it was probably a good
force behind making dialup Internet access widely available and affordable).


We had over 11 years of forced network unbundling for the ILECS (ie where
the ILECs are required to sell the bare copper at cost).  The idea, of
course, was to help service providers get on their feet while they were
building out their own network.  By and large, for a policy standpoint, it
did very little to actually increase network buildout.  Almost all of the
CLECs took the easy money of reselling the Bell networks and ran, making
agreegates of billions of dollars and not really building out any network to
speak of.  (Yes, there are some exceptions, but, this sums up the general
problem).

Forced wholesale access of the physical layer / network layer does
absolutely nothing to increase availability and, in fact, actually hurts
availabilty.  The ISP / CLEC that is basically reselling ILEC copper is not
connecting anyone who wouldn't / couldn't have been connected via the ILEC.
However, because the ILEC is less profitable due to forced reselling, then
they can't buildout as much infrastructure (theoretically).

The only real change in FCC policy in the past 11 years (fundamentally) is
that more people actually have to provide the services that they are
selling.  It's harder now to buy Bell DSL service, stick your own label on
it, and say that you're competing with Ma Bell.  All in all, I think that's
a good thing.

I understand that it isn't necessarily economically efficient to have
multiple sets of copper / coax going to the same house / office building,
and that telecommunication companies often constitute a natural monopoly of
sorts.  Forced selling of the network layer still doesn't get any new people
access to the

Now, if they wanted to successfully regulate the market, force a separation
of the network layer and the physical layer into two separate companies, a
model that is being vaguely adopted for some muni-funded developments.

The fact of the matter is that the US is doing pretty damn well at broadband
deployment, and, corruption aside, most of the current administration's
policies have been fairly benificial towards making broadband more widely
available (with some very major exceptions).  The US is fairly far down on
the list statistically; however, comparing US to Japan or European markets
is not an accurate comparison.  Sure, there is fiber available for

$25/month in many countries...can you profitably deploy fiber in Idaho at

$25ARPU?  Montana?  Kansas?  North Dakota?  Is bad FCC policy to blame?  Or
the fact that this is a big country with a lot of empty space...something
that doesn't affect most of the countries that are beating us in broadband
development.

Is the government policy hurting the independent ISPs?  Really?  Given the
huge regulatory requirements that exist on the ILECs, and the relative
freedom that the independents operate under, I can't really see the
independent industry as being hurt by government policy.

BTW, I do agree that the FCC is in the pocket of the telco's...and so on and
so forth.  However, most of the changes have, nevertheless, been positive
changes.  The industry does need less regulation, IMHO.  As long as there is
interconnection is manditory, there really doesn't need to be much more
regulation.  Don't like ATT?  Build your own network...(as most of you are
doing).  Expand.  Grow.  Acquire customers...you know, compete and all that
sort of good capitalistic stuff...

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies




On 7/24/07, Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Mike Hammett wrote:
 3 mbit is not fast.  The US IS behind other countries, there's no
 point in whining about it.  Yes, there are very substantial reasons
 why our numbers don't look as good as theirs, but there's no need to
 skew the system to make us look better...  just solve the problem.



 Fixed wireless is broadband.  WIFI hotspots, cell phones, etc. are not
 broadband (maybe the cell broadband cards).  The reason our numbers
 are climbing is because this has been a problem for some time and
 we're working on fixing it.  It takes a lot to change things like that
 for the third most populous country in the world.



 Perhaps it should be measured per household and not per capita, I dunno.



 The reason why there's less competition elsewhere is because what is
 present is doing a good enough job!  Their telcos have delivered 15
 meg DSL for years, while ours don't yet offer it.  That's why cable is
 taking on so well here.  It surely isn't because anything connected to
 Comcast has a good price point (DSL and satellite TV are both better
 values

Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband..

2007-07-24 Thread Clint Ricker

Sam, I agree with your observation 100%.  Given most of the oversubscription
models in place in the industry, it is not even a matter of having
cheapskate customers.  Internet access (broadly speaking) is NOT very
bandwidth intensive.

Filesharing, video, etc... is bandwidth intensive.  Other than that, it's
all overkill.  Voice? 30Kb/s per line.  Web surfing?  100K once every couple
of minutes.  Email?  A brief surge of 100K a few times a day.  For most
users, 256Kb/s will provide the same user experience as 100Mb/s.

People pay 6Mb/s connections for the same reasons they pay for faster cars,
even though the speed limit is the same for a Ford Pinto as a Ferrari.  Not
an entirely apt analogy, but pretty much sums it up.

Honestly, I'd pay a lot more money for a connection with nearly 100% uptime
and consistently low latency...you know, like a T1 :).  Having a good
quality broadband connection would do MUCH more for business and Internet
usage than having a higher capacity connection--after all, our fear of voice
over IP is not that we are going to run out of bandwidth, but that the
connection is going to drop.  Our reluctance to rely too heavily on
Internet-based applications, be it voice, video, or office applications, is
MUCH more the worry that our Internet connection will be out right when we
need to access it (or receive that important call) than the worry that our
tubes are too small and will get clogged.



-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies

On 7/24/07, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Peter R. wrote:
 Mike Hammett wrote:
 3 mbit is not fast.  The US IS behind other countries, there's no
 point in whining about it.  Yes, there are very substantial reasons
 why our numbers don't look as good as theirs, but there's no need to
 skew the system to make us look better...  just solve the problem.



 Fixed wireless is broadband.  WIFI hotspots, cell phones, etc. are
 not broadband (maybe the cell broadband cards).  The reason our
 numbers are climbing is because this has been a problem for some time
 and we're working on fixing it.  It takes a lot to change things like
 that for the third most populous country in the world.



 Perhaps it should be measured per household and not per capita, I
dunno.



 The reason why there's less competition elsewhere is because what is
 present is doing a good enough job!  Their telcos have delivered 15
 meg DSL for years, while ours don't yet offer it.  That's why cable
 is taking on so well here.  It surely isn't because anything
 connected to Comcast has a good price point (DSL and satellite TV are
 both better values).



 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com
 If they change the definition to 1MB, EVDO won't count and neither
 will IDSL and DSL Lite. The numbers of BB users in the stats will drop
 - the telcos will look like they have very few BB subs since about
 10-20% buy Lite (depending who you believe). So the FCC will never
 voluntarily change the definition.

 BTW, in countries with deep BB penetration, the regulators are TOUGH -
 as in the FCC Chairman does not have Ivan and Ed's hands up his butt
 so he can talk like Charlie McCarthy.

 But ALL of that is beside the point. End of the day, YOU guys have to
 find, acquire and retain profitable customers. No matter what the
 regulatory or competitive environment looks like.

 - Peter @ RAD-INFO, Inc.

I know it has been brought up before, but I'll bring it up again, the
majority of my customers are plenty happy at 1mbit service.  How do I
know this?  The upgrade is only $10/month to go from 380K to 2M on my
system, but less than 10% of my customers have opted for the higher cost
plan ($40/mo instead of $30/mo).  In fact if I remove business accounts
from the equation then less that 5% opt for the 2 meg plan.

What is even more telling is that 15% of my customer base is unwilling
to pay $5/month more to upgrade from 128K to 380K

Are we ranked so low because we actually only provide service that is
requested by our customers instead of over providing?  I wonder of the
14 other countries above us if their consumers were given the ability to
halve their ISP bill for half the speed if they would be willing to
still pay the higher rate.

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless




Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know
your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The
current Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to
know your thoughts.


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



Would you like to see your advertisement

Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband..

2007-07-24 Thread Clint Ricker
 for the time being, I believe, copper won't be able to deliver the
needed bandwidth for 10 years down the road...



Qwest is no longer the ILEC in Omaha. That's the first MSA. VZ has asked

for forbearance in 6 MSA's, due in 80 days.

In 80 days, you won't be able to buy access from VZ unless they want to
sell it to you. Why? The stats say cable has beat them out. And I think
it is almost on purpose, so the ILEC can get out from under regulation
and do what it wants.

Do you think that the CLECs are actually hurting the ILECs? Or the ISP's?


ISP's have less than 1% of the DSL in the US.  FISPA members at one time

had 3% of the BellSouth market in 2001.
CLEC's in their hey day had a whopping 15% of the market (2001 I
think).  Not any more.

The largest CLEC has less than 100,000 customers. And even with the
Super CLEC's - all 3 of them - approaching $1B in revenue, their debt is
3/4 of that number and they pay more than 50% of revenue to the ILEC.





How does that hurt the ILEC? They make money from CLEC's. They don't

make a dime from cable.



Does it hurt the ILEC?  Heh...probably not all that much.  But, are CLECs
really helping the consumer?  I tend to argue no, by and large...why IS CLEC
market share so small?  Why are independent ISPs have so little market
share?

CLECs have killed themselves because they tended to think in quarterly and
yearly terms for P/L and investment.  The cable companies and the ILECS tend
to think longer term and so have been able to win out in the long term.
NSPs pay ~$30/month to resell DSL service; $3,600 over ten years to provide
DSL service to a residence.  That's enough money to start financing a fiber
buildout, and that's just some crummy DSL service.  Owning the physical
infrastructure makes a huge difference, something that CLECs, by and large,
never learned, and just kept on paying huge chunks of money to the ILEC
rather than building their own network and making themselves sufficient (in
a lot of cases, it isn't feasible, since you do have to have a certain
market penetration for it to be worthwhile.).

Anyway, that's a lot of rambling.  I tend to agree with a lot of your
points, Peter; I just don't really see the value.  The CLECs got special
market regulation and so forth on the premise of creating a lot of extra
competition, increasing broadband penetration, and (vaguely) the promise of
innovation.  They have by and large failed miserably in all three areas...
Put them to rest.  Put the efforts on getting more people involved in
actually building out networks and increasing REAL competition (yes,
wireless does fit in there to some degree).


Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies



On 7/24/07, Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Clint Ricker wrote:
 I'll duck after this post, but I by and large tend to agree with the
 basis of the article.

 Scottie, exactly what regulation would you recommend?
STRUCTURAL SEPARATION like BT is experiencing in the UK, which would
never happen here.

 What has regulation solved in the past 11 years?  By and large, I've
 not seen a single bit of FCC regulation that has had a net positive
 impact for getting access to the consumer, especially post 2000 (it
 was probably a good force behind making dialup Internet access widely
 available and affordable).
It was not FCC regulation; it was the TA96 that was tattered and torn by
lobbying and litigating.
The FCC SHOULD have advanced its policy and then set to forcing it.
Instead it went to bed with 2 of the industries it is supposed to
regulate (media  telco).

The FCC could easily have forced CLEC's to build out at the same time it
forced the ILEC's to unbundle.

Let me extrapolate this for you:

In the NFL cities you would have endless construction as fiber is laid
to all the MTU's.
But in all other markets, not so much competition.
And then you would have VZ selling off its rural ... oh, wait, they do
that now because they don't want to invest the money.
They make a good rate of return (as attested to by their increasing
profits -- not revenues). They get USF and other funding to provide
service in rural areas, but do not want to live up to the promises that
they made back in 1997-1999.

Do you think I care about the 15th or 21st or whatever study number? No.

All I care about is the divide between us and and the rest of the world.
Whether you admit it or not, economically broadband is a utility. It is
the utility for home-based workers, entrepreneurs, the Creative Class,
and innovation. As more and more people get PC access and get online,
more and more ideas, projects, and innovation happens. I want that to
happen in the US. Not in India. Not in China or Korea, but here in
America.

We have a shortage of doctors in America. A shortage of teachers.
Some of this can be solved via broadband like tele-medicine and distance
learning.

 Forced wholesale access of the physical layer / network layer does
 absolutely nothing to increase availability and, in fact, actually
 hurts availabilty

Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts

2007-07-12 Thread Clint Ricker

John Vogel,
Disagreeing with you does not make this a less-than-professional
discussion.  There was nothing in my post that was unprofessional or
uncivil; I simply disagree with the use of magnet-mounting equipment onto
towers.   If discussion on such stuff is unprofessional, then these lists
have no purpose.

You stated in your earlier post regarding magnets I don't completely trust
them.  I don't either, so we are in agreement on the matter :).  Call it
unprofessional of me, but I tend to think that one should avoid using
mounting methods that one doesn't trust when one is dealing with big, heavy
chunks of metal and what-all hundreds of feet in the air.

As a general side note, any statement about mounting that involved some
statement of I don't completely trust it would get the same response from
me.  I don't like the idea of people mounting big heavy objects above my
head using methods they themselves have some doubt about.

Best practices does not necessarily entail commercially available solutions
or degreed engineering solutions.  Best practices are simply that--the
optimal way(s) of achieving a particular task.  I don't completely trust
methods are a long-ways off from that.

My point is not to increase regulation and such--quite the opposite.  My
point is that using practices that aren't completely trusted will, in the
end, lead to regulation.  As an industry, the wireless industry will have to
learn to regulate itself to a moderate degree or it will be regulated to a
heavy degree.  There's a lot that goes by everyone on that is not
necessarily as well done as it could be--which is understandable--business
may require concessions to some degree.  Nevertheless, better practices
should be used in places that are highly visible or potentially impact the
public community.

Does it need to involve a degreed engineer?  Of course not.  But,
considering that even you had your doubts, 200 feet above everyone in plain
sight of an entire town is a heck-of a place for a we'll see approach
which was the feeling I got from your original postings.

I don't think that engineering needs to take into accounts stupid misuse (ie
antennas being used as footholds).  Still, I don't see how a mounting
solution that you were almost surprised that there hadn't been slippage on a
year later is a good thing.

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies

ps.  I'm not against magnets in general.  Magnets on my fridge?  Guilty as
charged :)

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Copper Plant

2007-06-22 Thread Clint Ricker

Sorry for the late reply on this; sometimes life takes presedence :)

Doug, you  definitely hit a number of things on the head, there.  There is a
_definite_ need for some much more...shall we say, mature network platforms
in the wireless industry, and then for that equipment to be available at
affordable prices.

Still, I don't necessarily agree with you (Doug) on the pricing.  Good stuff
like you're describing will never be cheap simply because there aren't
enough units produced and sold to make it profitable at lower prices.  Is it
expensive?  Yes.  Still, do keep in mind that multi-tenant solutions in the
non-wireless world are considerably considerably much more expensive that
what you mentioned, not necessarily in terms of gear but definitely in terms
of infrastructure (fiber or whatever).  This is, btw, done again and again
at very lucrative profit margins in aggregate...it would be worth your while
to study your competition in the industry and see how they make money :).

I wouldn't really expect for the price of such equipment to fall
considerably, btw, simply because a large portion of the independent market
often is price-conscious to a fault, meaning that too often, a lot of the
providers out there deploy less-than ideal systems simply to save a few
dollars.  As a little inside/outside observation about the independent
provider industry, the guys who tend to do better are the guys who, at least
when it counts, will pay major money to get the right platform in place, and
then sell the hell out of that platform.  In a weird sort of way, I
sometimes wonder if the ebay / jerry-rig approach that often goes on (which,
is often quite technically sound) almost hurts simply because it allows
service providers too often to deploy platforms that don't really have a
critical mass.  Sometime, if you're up for either some humor or hurting
(depending on where you're standing), talk to Peter (rad-info Peter) about
cost and pricing and profit in the industry.  He's got a lot of good insight
on the busness operations side of service providers about all the stupid
ways that independents often do very bad calculations in their business
planning (for example, forget to figure that it costs you money to bill and
invoice).  The same thing goes into the technical platforms as well.  A lot
of you guys tend to fixate on the cost of the routers or APs or whatever (ie
central networking equipment).  If you do a total cost of ownership to
your platforms, it often becomes clearer why doubling the cost of your
router doesn't really raise your costs all that much and often provides much
better value.

Anyway, back to my point, whatever that was :).  Definitely more mature
platforms will have to come in the wireless industry.  As a general
observation, the biggest difference between the wireline service provider
gear and the wireless industry stuff is 1. bandwidth to some degree 2. lack
of mature provisioning systems and mechanisms.  The wireless industry is
still very focused on the connection rather than a service.

(for those who haven't really dealt with the other) Provisioning by the
service means that you provision services on your platform.  Your platform
tracks usage, capacity, and so forth, and gives you the ability to
provision a service that has some guarantee of bandwidth on an end-to-end
basis.  For the most part, the wireless industry still operates a little too
heavily as just a series of dumb pipes (wireles or not) without no
non-overly-cumbersome methods of provisioning across the infrastructure
including various classes of services across the infrasrtucture as well.  As
a result, WISPs networks tend to be an entirely best effort approach end
to end.

Anyway, just some thoughts and ramblings.  Back to other stuff for now...
-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies

On 6/18/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



 For Last Mile-
 FreeSpace Optics can be had now up to 1/2 mile for as low as $5K.  GB
 manufacturers are going to realize soon, the day of the huge profit
 margin will be a thing of the past. The competition is here on all
fronts.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


Yep, I just did a 100meg FSO link and it was around $5k for the link.

I wuld have preffered to do fiber and I'm sure it would have been not
much more, but the beaurocracy to get where I needed to go was slow
moving.

George
--
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/


  1   2   >