Re: [WISPA] Wireless Without Limits

2011-11-03 Thread David Sovereen
Shafty really?  How much are they charging for the event?  Zero, except 
that you need to book through them, and they derive some revenue through 
the booking.  How much was registration to Wispapalooza?  How much is 
registration to Animal Farm?

 The policy seems fair to me.

I suppose they could charge an event registration fee of ___ for persons 
who booked through another means, which might help Ralph's situation, but I 
don't think Double Radius' position is without merit.

Dave


 From: Andy Trimmell atrimm...@precisionds.com
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 10:09 AM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wireless Without Limits

+1 for pretty shafty!

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Chuck Hogg
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 8:09 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wireless Without Limits

That's pretty shafty!

Regards,

Chuck

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:58 PM, rwf ralphli...@bsrg.org wrote:
 I will be on the cruise, but Double Radius is refusing to allow me to
 participate because I got my room through an employee discount and not
their
 travel agent.

 If you want to meet up or talk, then the only thing I know is for you
to
 leave me a note or voice mail for cabin 0004.



 Ralph

 Brightlan.net





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




 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



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] Router Redundancy and /30 Ip address

2011-07-28 Thread David Sovereen
Hi Gino,

 

It can be done.  It isn't well-documented, however.

 

On Mikrotik, for example, you put a management IP address on each router's
ethernet interface, used for speaking vrrp only, and then put the IP
address(es) that deal with customers on the vrrp subinterface.  For example:

 

rtr-1

ether1 assigned 172.16.1.1/30 (management IP used to negotiate vrrp only)

  vrrp1 = master

   24.5.20.17/30 - 24.5.20.18/30 = cust-rtr-1

   24.5.21.1/30 - 24.5.21.1/30 = cust-rtr-2

   etc


rtr-2

ether1 assigned 172.16.1.2/30 (management IP used to negotiate vrrp only)

  vrrp1 = backup, configure same IP addresses as found on rtr-1's vrrp1
interface

 

In this configuration, the two rtr's use 172.16.1.0/30 to negotiate vrrp
master/backup only.

 

While rtr-1 is up, only the vrrp1 interface on rtr-1 is active and the /30s
that are assigned between you and your customers are active only on rtr-1's
vrrp1 interface.  The vrrp1 interface on rtr-2 is not active, and the IP
addresses configured there aren't doing anything.  If rtr-1 fails, then the
vrrp1 interface configured on rtr-2 becomes active and rtr-2 begins
responding to the IP addresses that were previously being responded to on
rtr-1's vrrp interface.  You do need to configure the same IPs on both
router's vrrp1 interfaces.

 

I use this as my preferred setup on Mikrotiks, as the documented way of
having traffic go out the ether1 interface and in the vrrp1 interface can
make firewall configs and troubleshooting unnecessarily complicated.  In
this way, all traffic goes through the vrrp1 interfaces and the ether1
interfaces are used exclusively for management/vrrp traffic.

 

Hope this helps,


Dave

 

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 3:36 PM
To: motor...@afmug.com; WISPA General List (wireless@wispa.org)
Subject: [WISPA] Router Redundancy and /30 Ip address

 

Anyone have a way of having Router Redundancy with /30 ip address. all
methods that I have researched (VRRP,HSRP) call for various IP addresses and
are suitable for /26 or larger IP blocks. How could I have a Router Backup
with multiple /30 ip addresses facing our customers?

 

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/

Re: [WISPA] Motorola PMP 320

2010-12-17 Thread David Sovereen
We happen to be doing ABC configuration with 7 MHz channels, and no
frequency reuse at any individual site (yet), so we just lucked out in
not running into this problem.

FYI, e2.0.2 is the latest and is on their web site.  Not sure if it
will make any difference for you.  That translates to
f03b00-v6.2.4.3MOTO on the SM and System_Release_e2.1_B28695_GUI_B3 on
the AP.

Dave


On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Carl Shivers cshiv...@aristotle.net wrote:
 Thanks for the info and the link to the .pdf. What kind of speed are you
 getting out of the 5 MHz channels?

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Eric Muehleisen
 Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 4:05 PM
 To: wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Motorola PMP 320

 We have a pretty large 320 network (200 SM's) and just recently had to
 move to 3.5mhz channel sizes because of self-interference between
 sectors. The ABAB channel plan will not scale well and you will suffer
 high packet loss as a result. Once your cluster hits around 20-30 SM's
 you'll begin to see it.

 Moving to a ABCD channel plan has resolved many issues and packet loss
 is very minimal now. Customer experience has greatly improved. We have
 subscribers at 9 miles so moving to 5mhz channel size is not an option
 until the extended range firmware is released. Obviously, once this
 software is released and the product gains upper 25mhz approval we can
 then run ABCD channel plan in 10mhz. Until then, we're stuck.

 -Eric

 On 12/16/2010 3:39 PM, Carl Shivers wrote:
 I'm running v6.2.4.3 on the SMs and System Release e2.0.1 on the APs.

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of David Sovereen
 Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 2:07 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Motorola PMP 320

 The current firmware works very well.  If you haven't done so already,
 upgrade to the latest firmware, as it resolves tons of RF link
 stability problems.

 If that's not your issue, please post details.  We have PMP320
 deployed and are happy with it.

 Dave


 On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Justin Wilsonli...@mtin.net  wrote:
     My experience with the Moto 3.65 stuff is the firmware downright
 stinks.
   I know they are working on improvements and I have not re-visited this
 in
 the past  months.

      Justin
 --
 Justin Wilsonj...@mtin.net
 Aol  Yahoo IM: j2sw
 http://www.mtin.net/blog - xISP News
 http://www.twitter.com/j2sw - Follow me on Twitter
 Wisp Consulting - Tower Climbing - Network Support



 
 From: Carl Shiverscshiv...@aristotle.net
 Reply-To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org
 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:28:06 -0600
 To: 'WISPA General List'wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: [WISPA] Motorola PMP 320

 During a breakout session at the recent Wireless Without Limits
 conference,
 one of the attendees was touting that they are really impressed with the
 new
 Motorola 3.65 GHz system. We have recently installed this system and we
 are
 having some problems maintaining links. This attendee told stories about
 how
 he had to tweak his SM installations, but once he had a link, it was
 generally solid.

 I would like to conference with one of you who are having success with
 this
 system so as to better utilize our installation.

 



 
 
 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

Re: [WISPA] Motorola PMP 320

2010-12-17 Thread David Sovereen
Yes, we are using their antenna, and you are correct that we do have
massive gaps, currently.  Because of the expense of the APs, we have
not been deploying them in 360 degree fashion.  We do a lot of 900 MHz
and have been installing them where we need additional capacity.  So
if we have a loaded 900AP (these are already sectorized as that is the
first step we take in adding capacity), we'll take a 320 AP sector and
face it in the same direction as the loaded 900AP, and then convert
customers onto it.  Currently, 3 is the maximum number of APs we have
on a single tower.  Also, none of our APs are currently GPS-synced,
but we our installations seem to be far enough apart and/or with
enough downtilt, and we have been paying close attention to our
frequency selections, that it hasn't been an issue.  I've been waiting
for Last Mile Gear's CTM-2 or was thinking about buying PacketFlux
SyncInjectors, pending Forrest's comments.

Dave

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Eric Muehleisen ericm...@gmail.com wrote:
 We are currently using the 3.5mhz channel. We are getting exactly what
 the link budget table says in the manual.

 3.5mhz channel (75% downlink) will give you 13mb/s in MIMO B. Next
 modulation down is around 6mb/s, which is what most SM's link up at.

 -Eric

 On 12/17/2010 9:18 AM, Carl Shivers wrote:
 Thanks for the info and the link to the .pdf. What kind of speed are you
 getting out of the 5 MHz channels?

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Eric Muehleisen
 Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 4:05 PM
 To: wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Motorola PMP 320

 We have a pretty large 320 network (200 SM's) and just recently had to
 move to 3.5mhz channel sizes because of self-interference between
 sectors. The ABAB channel plan will not scale well and you will suffer
 high packet loss as a result. Once your cluster hits around 20-30 SM's
 you'll begin to see it.

 Moving to a ABCD channel plan has resolved many issues and packet loss
 is very minimal now. Customer experience has greatly improved. We have
 subscribers at 9 miles so moving to 5mhz channel size is not an option
 until the extended range firmware is released. Obviously, once this
 software is released and the product gains upper 25mhz approval we can
 then run ABCD channel plan in 10mhz. Until then, we're stuck.

 -Eric

 On 12/16/2010 3:39 PM, Carl Shivers wrote:
 I'm running v6.2.4.3 on the SMs and System Release e2.0.1 on the APs.

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of David Sovereen
 Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 2:07 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Motorola PMP 320

 The current firmware works very well.  If you haven't done so already,
 upgrade to the latest firmware, as it resolves tons of RF link
 stability problems.

 If that's not your issue, please post details.  We have PMP320
 deployed and are happy with it.

 Dave


 On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Justin Wilsonli...@mtin.net   wrote:
      My experience with the Moto 3.65 stuff is the firmware downright
 stinks.
    I know they are working on improvements and I have not re-visited this
 in
 the past  months.

       Justin
 --
 Justin Wilsonj...@mtin.net
 Aol   Yahoo IM: j2sw
 http://www.mtin.net/blog - xISP News
 http://www.twitter.com/j2sw - Follow me on Twitter
 Wisp Consulting - Tower Climbing - Network Support



 
 From: Carl Shiverscshiv...@aristotle.net
 Reply-To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org
 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:28:06 -0600
 To: 'WISPA General List'wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: [WISPA] Motorola PMP 320

 During a breakout session at the recent Wireless Without Limits
 conference,
 one of the attendees was touting that they are really impressed with the
 new
 Motorola 3.65 GHz system. We have recently installed this system and we
 are
 having some problems maintaining links. This attendee told stories about
 how
 he had to tweak his SM installations, but once he had a link, it was
 generally solid.

 I would like to conference with one of you who are having success with
 this
 system so as to better utilize our installation.

 


 
 
 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] Motorola PMP 320

2010-12-16 Thread David Sovereen
The current firmware works very well.  If you haven't done so already,
upgrade to the latest firmware, as it resolves tons of RF link
stability problems.

If that's not your issue, please post details.  We have PMP320
deployed and are happy with it.

Dave


On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Justin Wilson li...@mtin.net wrote:
    My experience with the Moto 3.65 stuff is the firmware downright stinks.
  I know they are working on improvements and I have not re-visited this in
 the past  months.

 Justin
 --
 Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net
 Aol  Yahoo IM: j2sw
 http://www.mtin.net/blog – xISP News
 http://www.twitter.com/j2sw – Follow me on Twitter
 Wisp Consulting – Tower Climbing – Network Support



 
 From: Carl Shivers cshiv...@aristotle.net
 Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:28:06 -0600
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: [WISPA] Motorola PMP 320

 During a breakout session at the recent Wireless Without Limits conference,
 one of the attendees was touting that they are really impressed with the new
 Motorola 3.65 GHz system. We have recently installed this system and we are
 having some problems maintaining links. This attendee told stories about how
 he had to tweak his SM installations, but once he had a link, it was
 generally solid.

 I would like to conference with one of you who are having success with this
 system so as to better utilize our installation.

 

 
 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] Motorola PMP 320

2010-12-16 Thread David Sovereen
Are your APs not GPS-synced?

Dave
On Dec 16, 2010 5:04 PM, Eric Muehleisen ericm...@gmail.com wrote:
 We have a pretty large 320 network (200 SM's) and just recently had to
 move to 3.5mhz channel sizes because of self-interference between
 sectors. The ABAB channel plan will not scale well and you will suffer
 high packet loss as a result. Once your cluster hits around 20-30 SM's
 you'll begin to see it.

 Moving to a ABCD channel plan has resolved many issues and packet loss
 is very minimal now. Customer experience has greatly improved. We have
 subscribers at 9 miles so moving to 5mhz channel size is not an option
 until the extended range firmware is released. Obviously, once this
 software is released and the product gains upper 25mhz approval we can
 then run ABCD channel plan in 10mhz. Until then, we're stuck.

 -Eric

 On 12/16/2010 3:39 PM, Carl Shivers wrote:
 I'm running v6.2.4.3 on the SMs and System Release e2.0.1 on the APs.

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of David Sovereen
 Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 2:07 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Motorola PMP 320

 The current firmware works very well. If you haven't done so already,
 upgrade to the latest firmware, as it resolves tons of RF link
 stability problems.

 If that's not your issue, please post details. We have PMP320
 deployed and are happy with it.

 Dave


 On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Justin Wilsonli...@mtin.net wrote:
 My experience with the Moto 3.65 stuff is the firmware downright
 stinks.
 I know they are working on improvements and I have not re-visited this
in
 the past months.

 Justin
 --
 Justin Wilsonj...@mtin.net
 Aol Yahoo IM: j2sw
 http://www.mtin.net/blog – xISP News
 http://www.twitter.com/j2sw – Follow me on Twitter
 Wisp Consulting – Tower Climbing – Network Support



 
 From: Carl Shiverscshiv...@aristotle.net
 Reply-To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org
 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:28:06 -0600
 To: 'WISPA General List'wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: [WISPA] Motorola PMP 320

 During a breakout session at the recent Wireless Without Limits
 conference,
 one of the attendees was touting that they are really impressed with the
 new
 Motorola 3.65 GHz system. We have recently installed this system and we
 are
 having some problems maintaining links. This attendee told stories about
 how
 he had to tweak his SM installations, but once he had a link, it was
 generally solid.

 I would like to conference with one of you who are having success with
 this
 system so as to better utilize our installation.

 




 
 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

Re: [WISPA] Pirate Bay Founders Lose Appeal

2010-11-27 Thread David Sovereen
Huh?  That's like saying you don't agree with stealing but don't like
the government arresting shoplifters...

Dave


On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Jeremie Chism jchi...@gmail.com wrote:
 Homeland security also shut down sites they think have no commercial
 benefit except to allow copyright infringement. I don't agree with
 copyright infringement but I also don't like the government deciding what
 sites are relevant and what sites aren't.
 Sent from my iPhone4
 On Nov 27, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com
 wrote:

 Just caught this…….



 http://www.nme.com/news/various-artists/54030



 Notice the last sentence…..



 We now look to governments and ISPs to take note of this judgment, do the
 responsible thing and take the necessary steps to get The Pirate Bay shut
 down.



 Maybe I’m biased but I see this as another attempt to transfer more blame
 onto ISPs.  They’ll be coming after us again, I’m sure of it.







 Robert West

 Just Micro Digital Services Inc.

 740-335-7020



 image001.gif



 
 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] Reverse Engineer BAM Authentication

2010-09-16 Thread David Sovereen
There's a hack somewhere out there that I think converts BAM requests
to RADIUS requests, so whoever made that must have figured it out.
However, RADIUS authentication support will be in 11.x, which I
believe is due out Q4 2010 or Q1 2011...

Dave



On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Marco Coelho coelh...@gmail.com wrote:
 Has anyone reversed engineered the BAM SM authentication?
 We would like to add this as a feature to our in-house software.

 Marco

 --
 Marco C. Coelho
 Argon Technologies Inc.
 POB 875
 Greenville, TX 75403-0875
 903-455-5036



 --
 Marco C. Coelho
 Argon Technologies Inc.
 POB 875
 Greenville, TX 75403-0875
 903-455-5036


 
 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] Bandwidth Providers

2010-09-02 Thread David Sovereen
Have you or has anyone here been able to buy from Comcast?  Comcast in
our area says we are a competitor and that they don't sell to
competitors

Dave
.
==
 MERCURY NETWORK CORPORATION
 David Sovereen
 989-837-3790 x 151



On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Justin Wilson li...@mtin.net wrote:
    Most telcos figure 8 months or so is the time to start re-negotiating so
 I am surprised they did not want to start talking to you.  We always start
 making inquiries around that time to see if we can get better pricing.

 Comcast fiber is not that bad to work with.  They will do BGP feeds and
 the like.  Have you contacted Zayo to see if they are doing anything in your
 area?  They have some stimulus money and have some projects on the books in
 Indiana.

 Another thing to consider is where your ATT circuit is homed out of.
   If it is at a carrier hotel you could simply use them for transport until
 you can get another physical connection.  This would allow you to become
 multi-homed and get your AS# and work toward IP space.  I am sure this would
 keep you busy re-numbering.  Maybe in the meantime a circuit opportunity
 would open up.

 Justin
 --
 Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net
 http://www.mtin.net/blog – xISP News
 http://www.twitter.com/j2sw – Follow me on Twitter
 Wisp Consulting – Tower Climbing – Network Support



 
 From: Eric Rogers ecrog...@precisionds.com
 Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 15:41:50 -0400
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: [WISPA] Bandwidth Providers

 I am looking for multiple connections to the internet.  We currently
 have ATT Fiber and IPs.  We want to look at redundancy in terms of
 becoming a BGP peer, and purchasing our own IP addresses.  The ONLY
 other provider in our area is Comcast.  Has anyone worked with them to
 do any BGP peering?

 What really rocked my boat was that I am seeing new ISPs signing up with
 ATT Opt-E-Man with 100 MB circuits for $2600/mo.  That is less than
 what I am paying for my 50 MB circuit.  I called my sales rep and they
 stated that I could get a 100 MB circuit for $4200/mo and because I am
 under contract for another year, there is nothing they can do for
 price...so pretty much they are saying to me that they want new
 customers, and anyone under contract they can gouge as long as I am
 under contract...

 When can we get rid of these monopolies?!?!?

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



 
 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] Backend systems

2010-08-22 Thread David Sovereen
Have you looked at Platypus?  Costs less, does more, scales big, and is a
proven solution (I've been using for 13 years, since 1997).

Dave

On Aug 22, 2010 7:50 PM, tfad...@coastinet.com wrote:
 I have been using Quickbooks memorized transactions since 2001, I
 added a JFFNMS monitoring server in 2004, a Scrutinizer Netflow server
 in 2007 We currently have 700+ customers

 My main problem with Quickbooks for billing is that it does not handle
 late fees adequately, so I don't charge them now. I have 300 customers
 I could charge a $5 late fee this month and about 40 people I could
 charge a $15 reconnect fee this month as well. That is over $2, 000: I
 know with late fees, this number would come down, maybe cut in
 half(which would mean I would get my money sooner). That is why I can
 cost justify moving to Powercode. I have seen enough improvement over
 the last year with Bertram buying them that I feel comfortable enough
 to move forward with them.

 My other problems are, call tracking for tech support, auto shutoff
 and auto reconnect. Online payment and transaction
 history for my customers, double data entry into Quickbooks and
 JFFNMS. Everything I need(still keep Netflow Server) to see would be
 on one system. My hope is that all the Azotel will continue to improve
 which should keep the Powercode folks focused on adding features and
 enhancements to their system. Competition is good for everyone!


 On Sunday 22/08/2010 at 3:33 pm, Mike Hammett wrote:
 I'm looking to have something completely in place by the end of the
 year. Because of the issues Matt pointed out, I don't want to really
 add much more until it's automated.

 Well, after I rebuild a bunch of backhauls and turn a new network into
 a
 routed one, the backends are next on my list.

 There sure isn't much information out there on Azotel. If I didn't get
 the Solutions4ebiz emails, I'd think it was a secret. I remember
 deciding against Platypus years ago, but now I don't remember why.
 Maybe I should revisit.

 The thing I don't like about WISPMon is that it's outsourced. Well,
 unless I pay $10k, which would be inappropriate for my size. I don't
 outsource my email, my DNS, my hosting, my lawn cutting, etc.
 Everything is in-house .

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



 On 8/22/2010 8:52 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

 I've been setting up FreeSide... forever. 1) I'm too poor to hire
 it out properly. 2) I haven't had the time to dedicate to it to
 finishing it up.

 I remember seeing someone on here made a new backend system. I'm
 thinking it was WISPMon, but I'm not sure if there's another out there
 that a WISP made.

 It looks as though WISPMon certain does things that FreeSide doesn't
 and
 looks a hell of a lot better. However, does it do everything that
 FreeSide does?






 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] Second 900mhz AP

2010-08-09 Thread David Sovereen
Minor note: Moto uses 8MHz channels and the middle channel for maximum 
separation is 915.

Dave

Jerry Richardson jrichard...@aircloud.com wrote:


I did not realize this was the wireless list and not the Moto List

Moto uses 9MHz channels so the 3 non-overlapping are 906, 914, and 924
- CH1 = 902-910
- CH2 = 911-919
- CH3 = 920-928

I can't speak from experience to co-locating multiple 900AP's on a tower 
without sync. I would think trying to get 3 10MHz channels on the same tower 
would present a significant limit to the # of subs you could get per AP.

However 5MHz channels might provide some decent scalability as long as you 
aren't trying to provide speeds much more than 3Mbps down but that's just a 
guess

- Jerry


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Philip Dorr
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 5:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Second 900mhz AP

Was that even legal? I thought the 900 MHz spectrum that we are
allowed was 902-928.

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Jerry Richardson
jrichard...@aircloud.com wrote:
 Before smartmeters (BC) we had 3 integrated 900's on the same tower at
 906, 914, and 930 without issue.

 It's really about your available spectrum. You need a minimum of 9MHz
 spacing.

 75'of cable should not be a problem other than loss is loss. I would
 put the AP on the back of the antenna



 Jerry Richardson
 Sent Mobile

 On Aug 8, 2010, at 3:05 PM, ~NGL~ n...@ngl.net wrote:

 I need to add a second AP on a tower and need help.
 How far apart must the 90 degree sector antenna be placed?
 Can they be the same polarity?
 Can I run LMR-400 to them about 70ft?
 Anything else I should consider?
 Thanx
 NGL


 ---
 ---
 ---
 ---
 
 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] legal entity type - was taxes

2010-06-08 Thread David Sovereen
If you are a subcontractor, you pay the entire 15% yourself. Subcontracting 
does not eliminate or reduce any social security tax obligation.  It only 
alters who pays it.

Dave

RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote:


If I understand correctly, social security tax is 15%. In an
employment situation, an employee pays 7.5% and the employer matches
pays the other 7.5%. If you subcontract, you only pay 7.5% and the
corp pays nothing.

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Scottie Arnett sarn...@info-ed.com wrote:
 The 7.5% comes back in on self-employment tax. That is the social security
 tax on the self-employed.

 Scottie

 But, they're not getting unemployment taxes, and they loose 7.5% on
 social security taxes...

 On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Jerry Richardson
 jrichard...@aircloud.com wrote:
 Yeah but they get it through self employment taxes.

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of RickG
 Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 8:03 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] legal entity type - was taxes

 Tom,

 I wanted to reply to this before I sent my last remarks. Rather than
 employee, I've been a subcontractor to my corporation since it
 began. These CPAs say that since I work in the company this is not a
 good thing because the government doesnt get all its due through
 payroll taxes.

 On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:56 AM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net
 wrote:
 Same subject, different question: Are you an employee of the corp?

 Good question. Again that depends. Depends on whether you are making
 money
 or investing in money.
 If you invest cash into a company, it usually makes sense to remove
 cash by
 paying back the investment, to avoid being double taxed on your own
 money,
 which would occur if you took payroll instead. If you are the sole
 owner of
 a S-Corp it becomes more forgiving, because at the end of the day
 anything
 you didn't take as salary, would tunnel to your personal income return
 anyways.
 But its really about what your tax braket and tax rate is for each
 entity,
 and monthly estimated tax payments would be. It about adjusting it so
 the
 least amount of tax paid upfront.
 If you haven't injected investment into the company, and company is
 making
 money, and you need money monthly to live,  you may have no choice but
 to
 take payroll as an employee, so you can take money out when you need
 it,
 which is every month.  Where as, if you live off another income source,
 you
 may not need to be an employee, and just take the income at end of the
 company tax year. It becomes mor complicated if multiple stock holders,
 as
 Employee payroll can be a method of defining fair compensation for time
 spent, before recognizing company profits.
 I personally am not an employee of my company, I am a stockholder. It
 much
 cleaner that way for my situation.
 However, I warn caution to others on that. If you anticipate needing
 credit
 for anything, so many credit things require proof of current historical
 monthly income.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message -
 From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 11:04 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] legal entity type - was taxes


 Same subject, different question: Are you an employee of the corp?

 On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote:
 We are an S-corp and have been since the first day we started. It
 provides personal protection against people suing you, etc. It also
 allows expenses by the corporation that may or may not be allowed as a
 sole proprietor (additional office locations, etc.).

 Again, you would need to check with your accountant. They are the only
 ones that can give you exact information.

 Travis
 Microserv

 RickG wrote:
 Its tempting to use a known CPA that is versed in our industry but
 I've had issues dealing with those out of state. With that said, I'm
 curious as to feedback on another issue. Who here is doing business
 as
 a sole proprietor? I've been an S-Corp for years but considering
 switching back due to its simplicity. This Corp stuff doesnt seem
 worth all the hassle.
 Thanks!

 On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Marlon K. Schafer
 o...@odessaoffice.com
 wrote:

 I'm with Travis on this one. Sometimes we take the entire hit at
 once,
 other times we spread it out. It kind of depends on what we need for
 deductions and what the equipment is.

 Our accountant has taken a lot of time to learn this industry and is
 really
 good. The phone number is 509.982.2922 if anyone is looking for a
 good
 one.

 laters,
 marlon

 - Original Message -
 From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 11:55 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] taxes



 Travis, thanks for your input. I'm really looking for feedback as
 to
 what our industry's standard is. I 

Re: [WISPA] You're going to love this... New IRS rules

2010-04-28 Thread David Sovereen
Quickbooks can spit them out for you easily and automatically. Sure, it will 
take some time to collect TINs the first year it's in effect, but after that, 
the work is only incremental and highly automatable.

Dave

MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:


http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/04/26/costly-irs-mandate-slipped-into-health-bill/

It requires 1099's for EVERY entity you do more than $600 business with a
year.

Gas station.  Walmart, your landlord, a $700 used car or truck.Ebay
purchases, ALL require 1099's now if you go over $600 a year.

That's almost enough for me to throw up my hands and say I quit.

Frankly, we should all just quit.   For a week.   Or a month.Call up the
White House and say you want it so bad, well now you got it, we quit.
When about 50 million of us do that, perhaps the administration will realize
it should consult someone besides insane marxists as it concerns business
and economics.




++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++






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] how to protect your kids

2010-04-20 Thread David Sovereen
To be clear, unemployment insurance is paid by employers, NOT employees.
The you in those sentences is the company you work(ed) for.  There are
no deductions from employee paychecks for unemployment insurance.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Ryan Spott
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 1:19 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] how to protect your kids

Yes, it depends on what you put in.

Remember that unemployment is generally what you put in, to a point. The
extensions that the feds put out are actually loans to your state that
get
paid back via unemployment taxes that you pay later.

The system works as a basic safety net. I don't mind it.. I just sweat
when
I am on it.

ryan

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Josh Luthman
j...@imaginenetworksllc.comwrote:

 Unemployment is dependent on your previous job from what I understand.
He
 was in the Marines.

 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 Suite 1337
 Troy, OH 45373

 Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to
continue
 that counts.
 --- Winston Churchill


 On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Ryan Spott rsp...@cspott.com wrote:

  How much is unemployment in OH?
 
  I max out here at 33% of my normal salary. I tell you I sweat and
sweat
  trying to pick up my next gig.
 
  ryan
 
  On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Josh Luthman
  j...@imaginenetworksllc.comwrote:
 
   My roommate is on unemployment.  How do you feel it sucks?
  
   He goes to school ~12 hours a week and gets paid more then I take
for
   salary
   with tuition paid.
  
   Josh Luthman
   Office: 937-552-2340
   Direct: 937-552-2343
   1100 Wayne St
   Suite 1337
   Troy, OH 45373
  
   Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to
  continue
   that counts.
   --- Winston Churchill
  
  
   On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Ryan Spott rsp...@cspott.com
wrote:
  
Obviously you have never been on unemployment.
   
It sucks.
   
ryan
   
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Kurt Fankhauser
k...@wavelinc.com
wrote:
   
 I heard that un-employment benefits recently got extended to
100
weeks
 Let's give the masses' more reason to not go find a job.

 Kurt Fankhauser
 WAVELINC
 P.O. Box 126
 Bucyrus, OH 44820
 419-562-6405
 www.wavelinc.com


 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:
 wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
   On
 Behalf Of RickG
 Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 9:33 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] how to protect your kids

 Wow, you're 22 and think like that?!?! I thought that mindset
was
   dated!
 Just come help with the family business and I'll make sure
you
 eat,
 have a place to sleep,  get a percentage of the profits :)

 On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Josh Luthman
 j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote:
  What would my allowance be with no chores?
 
  Another big thing...I never got an allowance.  I worked for
my
  money
  (odd jobs, helping people out, etc.)Before Rick that is.
 
  IMO it's crap.  Giving a child money to do what is expected
(help
  cleaning and keeping up the house) just makes no sense.
Both my
  parents came from a farm - work all day every day and in
turn
 food
   and
  a bed.
 
  On 4/19/10, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote:
  Can I adopt you? :)
 
  On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Josh Luthman
  j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote:
  Keep in mind I am 22 and have no kids.  This is my
personal
 point
   of
 view.
 
  My parents never set guidelines or many rules (just the
basic
things).
 
  I have never done any drugs.  Been offered and been around
them
   more
 then
  enough.  Never smoked a cigarette in my life.  Never drank
 until
  I
  was...very close to 21.  Never got in any trouble at
school.
  My
first
 job
  led to the second job/career I have today.  I enjoy my
life,
 the
people
  around me and the things I have.
 
  My partner has 3 teenage girls.  He is extremely strict.
One
 of
   them
 gets
  in to trouble, disobeys, does wrong things, etc.  A
friend I
  had
   in
 high
  school was in the same position.  I know where that
person's
 life
 stands
  today and I would say we could all agree it's not what we
hoped
  our
 lives
  would be at 23 or 24.
 
  I'm not judging how you or anyone parent, but rather just
  providing
you
  with
  my experiences, my results and my facts.
 
  Take the above for as much as you paid for it =)
 
  Josh Luthman
  Office: 937-552-2340
  Direct: 937-552-2343
  1100 Wayne St
  Suite 1337
  Troy, OH 45373
 
  Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the
courage
 to
 

[WISPA] 3.65 GHz WiMAX deal

2010-03-17 Thread David Sovereen
I think I saw an ad here for Aperto or AirSpan or some other vendor who
had 3.65 GHz gear with $200 SMs for life if you bought a particular
package.  If the company who sent that could re-send it to me off-list,
or if it was on another list and someone here knows what I am talking
about and can send me the e-mail, I'd really appreciate it.

 

Thanks,

 

Dave

 

==

 MERCURY NETWORK CORPORATION 

 David Sovereen

 989-837-3790 x 151

 http://www.mercury.net

 




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

2009-09-22 Thread David Sovereen
We measure and record each subscriber's usage (easy to do with Mikrotik
HotSpot functionality and RADIUS accounting data).

Our TOS has an Excessive Usage policy which defines excessive usage as
six times the average.  Each month, our system calculates the average
and excessive and sends an e-mail to customers over the excessive usage
limit, asking them to modify/reduce their use or upgrade to a higher
plan (we calculate average and excessive use separately for each plan
type).

Any subscriber who hits the excessive use limit three months in a row
receives a nastygram e-mail from us forcing them to upgrade or cancel.

This tactic works very well for us.  Less than 1% hit the limit each
month and an even smaller percentage hit it three months in a row.  Most
subscribers do upgrade or modify their behavior.  Often, its parents who
don't know their kids are generating so much traffic.

We don't do any limiting of applications or services at layer 3 or
above.  Just basic bandwidth limiting based on their chosen service
plan.  Its not worth the time and energy chasing specific applications.
The problem isn't torrent.  The problem is excessive use and placing an
extraordinary burden on the network.  The excessive use could be caused
by Netflix, YouTube, or any number of other non-torrent applications.
In this way, we measure and address the real problem -- excessive use --
and have no issues with being net neutral.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Robert West
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:11 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

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 

Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

2009-09-22 Thread David Sovereen
We use IEA's Radius (www.iea-software.com).  It reads/writes SQL, so
integrating it with Platypus is a breeze.  Platypus selects the averages
and e-mails the notifications automatically each month.  Then generates
the e-mail and opens a ticket automatically on the third month.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Mark McElvy
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 12:12 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

What are you using to tabulate your accounting data?

Mark McElvy
AccuBak Data Systems, Inc.


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of David Sovereen
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:27 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

We measure and record each subscriber's usage (easy to do with Mikrotik
HotSpot functionality and RADIUS accounting data).





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] AP using Mikrotik Routerboard

2009-02-10 Thread David Sovereen
Huh?  Why haven't any of my orders ever come assembled free?  Whenver I want 
it assembled, you charge me something called Assembly Charge for Kit Units 
at a cost of $6.00 each.  See invoice 29306.

Dave

- Original Message - 
From: e...@wisp-router.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] AP using Mikrotik Routerboard


 If you purchase all items for a complete unit we will assemble it free of 
 charge. This is a service we been doing ever since we started selling 
 MikroTik 5 years ago. We will do that even for StarOS or IkarusOS base 
 solution as long as all parts and licenses to make a complete system is 
 purchased at once from us. We also offer preconfiguration (but for a small 
 charge) if you want a true plug and play solution ready to go when you 
 receive the units.

 /Eje
 Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

 -Original Message-
 From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com

 Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 18:58:49
 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] AP using Mikrotik Routerboard


 You might spend a good 50 dollars in parts that you can reuse between
 enclosures for every few or you can pay a vendor to do it (marked up
 of course).

 If you'd like my full list of parts I buy/use for every AP let me know.

 On 2/9/09, Blair Davis the...@wmwisp.net wrote:
 I could, if there was demand.

 I'm sure that they are out there...

 but, building your own is easy...

 Phil Curnutt wrote:

 Does anyone produce a complete Mikrotik Routerboard Access Point-  ie.-
 routerboard, radio cards, pigtails, enclosure etc.?

 Phil


 
 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/






 -- 
 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 Suite 1337
 Troy, OH 45373

 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
 --- Henry Spencer


 
 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] AP using Mikrotik Routerboard

2009-02-10 Thread David Sovereen
Meant to send off-list... sorry.

Dave

- Original Message - 
From: David Sovereen david.sover...@mercury.net
To: e...@wisp-router.com; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] AP using Mikrotik Routerboard


 Huh?  Why haven't any of my orders ever come assembled free?  Whenver I 
 want
 it assembled, you charge me something called Assembly Charge for Kit 
 Units
 at a cost of $6.00 each.  See invoice 29306.

 Dave

 - Original Message - 
 From: e...@wisp-router.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 8:20 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] AP using Mikrotik Routerboard


 If you purchase all items for a complete unit we will assemble it free of
 charge. This is a service we been doing ever since we started selling
 MikroTik 5 years ago. We will do that even for StarOS or IkarusOS base
 solution as long as all parts and licenses to make a complete system is
 purchased at once from us. We also offer preconfiguration (but for a 
 small
 charge) if you want a true plug and play solution ready to go when you
 receive the units.

 /Eje
 Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

 -Original Message-
 From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com

 Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 18:58:49
 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] AP using Mikrotik Routerboard


 You might spend a good 50 dollars in parts that you can reuse between
 enclosures for every few or you can pay a vendor to do it (marked up
 of course).

 If you'd like my full list of parts I buy/use for every AP let me know.

 On 2/9/09, Blair Davis the...@wmwisp.net wrote:
 I could, if there was demand.

 I'm sure that they are out there...

 but, building your own is easy...

 Phil Curnutt wrote:

 Does anyone produce a complete Mikrotik Routerboard Access Point-  ie.-
 routerboard, radio cards, pigtails, enclosure etc.?

 Phil


 
 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/






 -- 
 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 Suite 1337
 Troy, OH 45373

 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
 --- Henry Spencer


 
 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] Paging

2008-04-29 Thread David Sovereen
Have you considered Verizon's TAP number?  We've had no problems with it. 
The number is 866-823-0501.  You need a modem, but its very reliable.

Dave

- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 3:23 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Paging


 Looking for opinions on paging providers. Right now using Verizon SMS to
 deliver alerts from the network monitoring system and various other
 automated systems. It appears their @vtext.com email gateway is getting
 filter happy and Verizon has no plans to implement a whitelist feature
 or do... anything.

 I'm looking for a simple, RELIABLE alphanumeric paging provider with
 reasonable rates and nationwide coverage. Suggestions? Located in MD
 just outside of DC.

 -- 
 Patrick Shoemaker
 President, Vector Data Systems LLC
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 office: (301) 358-1690 x36
 mobile: (410) 991-5791
 http://www.vectordatasystems.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] Billing suggestings (Plat Wireless stuff)

2008-01-17 Thread David Sovereen
No, I don't.  My guess would be this year, but I really don't know.

Dave

- Original Message - 
From: Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Billing suggestings (Plat Wireless stuff)


 Dave, got a eta for 7.0?

 Gino A. Villarini
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of David Sovereen
 Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:39 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Billing suggestings (Plat Wireless stuff)

 Platypus by nature is very extensible and expandable.  We have it
 control
 every aspect of our wireless broadband service, having it talk so
 Mikrotiks,
 Canopy Prizm, and the like, permitting access, controlling bandwidth,
 assigning static IP addresses, etc.

 Much of this capability is there out-of-the-box.  Much, much more
 wireless-specific capability, such as radio/antenna inventory management
 and
 integrations pre-designed for wireless operators, will be built in to
 Platypus 7.0.

 Dave

 - Original Message - 
 From: Dylan Bouterse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:57 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Billing suggestings (Plat Wireless stuff)


 What wireless stuff has been added?

 Dylan

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On
 Behalf Of George Rogato
 Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 1:08 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Billing suggestings

 Platypus

 I understand that a wisp here at wispa has worked with tucows to add
 wireless stuff to it.

 George




 Ross Cornett wrote:
 Hey guys,

 I am in a pickle here with my client tracking database.  We had a
 propriatary softward made for us and it is not a great scenario for
 us.
 This software stored data in an access database and primarily was
 client
 contact, reminding renewals for mailing bills...etc...

 What are you all using that might be a good transition for me...

 Thanks in advance...

 Ross Cornett
 HofNet Communications, Inc.
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]


 - Original Message - 
 From: Ross Cornett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
 wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:37 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Equalizer Anyone?


 I too would say the same.  Initially they did a good job, but soon
 after
 they began to be in effective and variable.  We contacted them and
 got
 very
 little satisfaction.  so, we are now trying mikrotiks at every tower.
 like
 a 333... details will follow with our success or failure.  We have
 implemented them at 4 or 5 towers and will be puting them at 30
 towers...


 Ross
 - Original Message - 
 From: Jake VanDewater [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:33 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Equalizer Anyone?


 We purchased a NetEqualizer last year, and we weren't impressed.  It
 did not
 perform well compared to the Emerging Technologies box we use.  The
 rate
 limits were not effectively enforced.

 -Jake



 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:16:46 -0600
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: [WISPA] Net Equalizer Anyone?

 I have been considering the Net Equalizer as a possible platform for
 bandwidth management. I know that topics like this often lead to a
 myriad of posts about bandwidth management normally. If possible I
 would
 like to hear feedback from people who have actually used this one
 appliance to hear about any advantages or disadvantages to use of
 this
 device for managing bandwidth in WISP networks. I appreciate hearing
 from any past or present users of the Net Equalizer platform.
 All the best,
 John Scrivner





 
 
 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/

 _
 Make distant family not so distant with Windows Vista(r) + Windows
 Live(tm).


 http://www.microsoft.com/windows/digitallife/keepintouch.mspx?ocid=TXT_T
 AGLM_CPC_VideoChat_distantfamily_012008




 
 
 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] Billing suggestings (Plat Wireless stuff)

2008-01-17 Thread David Sovereen
Nope... I bought another company and have my hands full.  Trying to get 
everything settled before I take a much-deserved three week vacation in 
South America next month.  Just had too much going on and had to cancel at 
the last moment.  I really wish I were there, though.  I'm sure I'm missing 
out on a lot of good info.  I hope audio/video of the show turns out good 
this year and is made available quickly.  I'd like to catch up on what I'm 
missing.  Have a drink (or three) for me!

Dave

- Original Message - 
From: Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Billing suggestings (Plat Wireless stuff)


 Hey Dave, aren't you here on SLC ?

 Gino A. Villarini
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of David Sovereen
 Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 1:48 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Billing suggestings (Plat Wireless stuff)

 No, I don't.  My guess would be this year, but I really don't know.

 Dave

 - Original Message - 
 From: Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:46 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Billing suggestings (Plat Wireless stuff)


 Dave, got a eta for 7.0?

 Gino A. Villarini
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On
 Behalf Of David Sovereen
 Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:39 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Billing suggestings (Plat Wireless stuff)

 Platypus by nature is very extensible and expandable.  We have it
 control
 every aspect of our wireless broadband service, having it talk so
 Mikrotiks,
 Canopy Prizm, and the like, permitting access, controlling bandwidth,
 assigning static IP addresses, etc.

 Much of this capability is there out-of-the-box.  Much, much more
 wireless-specific capability, such as radio/antenna inventory
 management
 and
 integrations pre-designed for wireless operators, will be built in to
 Platypus 7.0.

 Dave

 - Original Message - 
 From: Dylan Bouterse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:57 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Billing suggestings (Plat Wireless stuff)


 What wireless stuff has been added?

 Dylan

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On
 Behalf Of George Rogato
 Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 1:08 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Billing suggestings

 Platypus

 I understand that a wisp here at wispa has worked with tucows to add
 wireless stuff to it.

 George




 Ross Cornett wrote:
 Hey guys,

 I am in a pickle here with my client tracking database.  We had a
 propriatary softward made for us and it is not a great scenario for
 us.
 This software stored data in an access database and primarily was
 client
 contact, reminding renewals for mailing bills...etc...

 What are you all using that might be a good transition for me...

 Thanks in advance...

 Ross Cornett
 HofNet Communications, Inc.
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]


 - Original Message - 
 From: Ross Cornett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
 wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:37 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Equalizer Anyone?


 I too would say the same.  Initially they did a good job, but soon
 after
 they began to be in effective and variable.  We contacted them and
 got
 very
 little satisfaction.  so, we are now trying mikrotiks at every
 tower.
 like
 a 333... details will follow with our success or failure.  We have
 implemented them at 4 or 5 towers and will be puting them at 30
 towers...


 Ross
 - Original Message - 
 From: Jake VanDewater [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:33 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Equalizer Anyone?


 We purchased a NetEqualizer last year, and we weren't impressed.  It
 did not
 perform well compared to the Emerging Technologies box we use.  The
 rate
 limits were not effectively enforced.

 -Jake



 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:16:46 -0600
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: [WISPA] Net Equalizer Anyone?

 I have been considering the Net Equalizer as a possible platform
 for
 bandwidth management. I know that topics like this often lead to a
 myriad of posts about bandwidth management normally. If possible I
 would
 like to hear feedback from people who have actually used this one
 appliance to hear about any advantages or disadvantages to use of
 this
 device for managing bandwidth in WISP networks. I appreciate
 hearing
 from any past or present users of the Net Equalizer platform.
 All the best,
 John

Re: [WISPA] Billing suggestings (Plat Wireless stuff)

2008-01-16 Thread David Sovereen
Platypus by nature is very extensible and expandable.  We have it control 
every aspect of our wireless broadband service, having it talk so Mikrotiks, 
Canopy Prizm, and the like, permitting access, controlling bandwidth, 
assigning static IP addresses, etc.

Much of this capability is there out-of-the-box.  Much, much more 
wireless-specific capability, such as radio/antenna inventory management and 
integrations pre-designed for wireless operators, will be built in to 
Platypus 7.0.

Dave

- Original Message - 
From: Dylan Bouterse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Billing suggestings (Plat Wireless stuff)


 What wireless stuff has been added?

 Dylan

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of George Rogato
 Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 1:08 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Billing suggestings

 Platypus

 I understand that a wisp here at wispa has worked with tucows to add
 wireless stuff to it.

 George




 Ross Cornett wrote:
 Hey guys,

 I am in a pickle here with my client tracking database.  We had a
 propriatary softward made for us and it is not a great scenario for
 us.
 This software stored data in an access database and primarily was
 client
 contact, reminding renewals for mailing bills...etc...

 What are you all using that might be a good transition for me...

 Thanks in advance...

 Ross Cornett
 HofNet Communications, Inc.
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]


 - Original Message - 
 From: Ross Cornett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
 wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:37 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Equalizer Anyone?


 I too would say the same.  Initially they did a good job, but soon
 after
 they began to be in effective and variable.  We contacted them and got
 very
 little satisfaction.  so, we are now trying mikrotiks at every tower.
 like
 a 333... details will follow with our success or failure.  We have
 implemented them at 4 or 5 towers and will be puting them at 30
 towers...


 Ross
 - Original Message - 
 From: Jake VanDewater [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:33 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Equalizer Anyone?


 We purchased a NetEqualizer last year, and we weren't impressed.  It
 did not
 perform well compared to the Emerging Technologies box we use.  The
 rate
 limits were not effectively enforced.

 -Jake



 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:16:46 -0600
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: [WISPA] Net Equalizer Anyone?

 I have been considering the Net Equalizer as a possible platform for
 bandwidth management. I know that topics like this often lead to a
 myriad of posts about bandwidth management normally. If possible I
 would
 like to hear feedback from people who have actually used this one
 appliance to hear about any advantages or disadvantages to use of
 this
 device for managing bandwidth in WISP networks. I appreciate hearing
 from any past or present users of the Net Equalizer platform.
 All the best,
 John Scrivner




 
 
 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/

 _
 Make distant family not so distant with Windows Vista(r) + Windows
 Live(tm).

 http://www.microsoft.com/windows/digitallife/keepintouch.mspx?ocid=TXT_T
 AGLM_CPC_VideoChat_distantfamily_012008



 
 
 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] Re:Keynote

2007-10-17 Thread David Sovereen
I thought it was excellent.  He's a very interesting speaker and I 
thoroughly enjoy what he has to say, as he has a very comprehensive and 
cohesive view of the market that provokes a lot of thought.


Memorable insights:

1.  There are too many backbone providers out there.  Back in the day, there 
were over 100.  Today, there are maybe 12 or so nationally that are still 
significant.  He thinks that number needs to come down to 4 in order for all 
of them to be viable.


2.  Interesting thoughts on telecome deregulation.  Said the cable and phone 
companies are still monopolies and are the cause of limited bandwidth.  They 
have a vested interest in keeping bandwidth scarce and expensive as voice 
and video are simply applications that run over IP.  Since voice and video 
are the breadwinners for telephone and cable companies, they want to limit 
broadband speeds and availability as much as possible so they can continue 
to make their better margin revenues on those services.  If bandwidth were 
super accessible and super affordable, voice and video would just be an 
application on the net and those revenues would disappear.  In his 
pie-in-the-sky ideal world, cable and telephone companies would be reduced 
to being nothing more than wholesale transport companies, would be forced to 
open those networks to independent, retail operators, and should be assured 
a reasonable return on investment and operations... say 12%, for 
shareholders.  Of course, this will never happen.  He gave examples of where 
this type of structure has been implemented in other areas of the world and 
has worked.


3.  Talked about why Cogent does Ethernet.  How there are nearly 2 billion 
(??) ethernet ports on the planet, more than anything else, they are low 
cost, and that makes sense for getting bandwidth to the masses.  GigE ports 
are available at BestBuy for under $100.  OC-3/12/48 ports are available 
only in limited form at very expensive prices.  So Ethernet makes sense for 
economic distribution of bandwidth.


4.  Wireless is bandwidth-limited.  Only so much spectrum.  As a result, 
will never be able to compete with line-based technologies, where terahertz 
of bandwidth are available over fiber optics.


5.  Talked about universal service and universal availability.  Subsidies 
need to go.  Let the market pay to deliver service based on real costs.  In 
his view of the country, probably 99% of the population can be covered with 
market-priced services, and the remaining 1% of people who live on 
mountain-tops, deserts, and jungles where it doesn't make economic sense to 
deliver service should simply not be served.  Let them move.


There was a lot more.  He packed a lot of thought into a short period of 
time.  His keynote was the most interesting and enjoyed I've heard at an 
ISPCON in a very long time, maybe ever.


Dave

- Original Message - 
From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 3:31 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Re:Keynote




How was the Cogent (Dave Shaefer) Keynote? Any new insight?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 2:22 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] ISPCON Notes



Patrick,

Thanks for clarifying the true value of the generous donation that 
Alvarion
made.  I did have that on the list below.  If I misstated it, I 
apologize.
It was great to see you to, I'm only sorry I didn't have more time to 
talk

to you.  You looked like you were feeling much better than last year.

Thanks,
Rick

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 1:25 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] ISPCON Notes

Rick,

Don't forget the late entry of a full BreezeNET B100 link that went to
WISPER Wireless Internet in Belleville, IL by the draw of Mike Delp's
card. That thing lists for $7,990. Thanks for allowing Alvarion to
donate the link to the raffle at the last minute.

Mike, if I see it on eBay I'll break your legs! :)

Matt Larson has one up now and he told me last night the link is over 30
miles and it is pulling over 20 mbps without blinking and that it has
been true set-and-forget.

Rudy, Jeff, George, Mac, J.C., Matt, Jack, Rick, Dave, et all...it was
great to see you last night. The reception was absolutely packed. Nice
job and thanks to Powercode and ImageStream for stepping up to sponsor
it.

Patrick Leary
AVP, Market Development
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rick Harnish
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 8:28 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] ISPCON Notes

WISPA held its biannual reception at ISPCON last night.  Attendance was
fabulous 

Re: [WISPA] 900mhz

2007-09-20 Thread David Sovereen
I'm not an RF guy, but I've been told that any frequency that divides into 
the frequency you are using evenly has the potential to interfere.


For example, if you are using 900MHz, then 450MHz, which divides into 900MHz 
evenly could interfere.  Same for 150MHz.


Dave

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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 2:56 PM
Subject: [WISPA] 900mhz



vhf
136-162
148-174
216-235

UHF
400-420
450-470

Would any of those frequency bother 900mhz Canopy?

Brian


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

2007-08-06 Thread David Sovereen
One of my employees has the HTC Mogul.  He's got Sprint (who we left because 
I got tired of dropped calls and the limited coverage).  They had it in 
stores starting last month.  Our company is on Verizon, and Verizon hasn't 
released it yet, so I'm still waiting, but that is definitely going to be my 
next PDA phone.  Runs Windows Mobile 6 and you can do just about anything 
you'd ever want with it.  The rumor on the street is that Verizon will have 
it in stores around November.  I'm particularly excited because Verizon is 
in the process of upgrading the towers in our area to EVDO (my phone keeps 
switching between 1X and EV, so I know its close), so the speed of e-mail 
and web on it should be pretty good.


Dave

- Original Message - 
From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Managing your network on the go-go-go!


Right, I know some people on the pre-Alltel service down there.  What 
technology does Alltel use?  I'd imagine you could get the HTC Mogul 
(really made by UTStarcom) to work on any CDMA provider.



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


- Original Message - 
From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Managing your network on the go-go-go!



Mike Hammett wrote:
I'd think a Sprint PocketPC device would be the way to go, but I haven't 
tried it.


The device would probably work, but Sprint's coverage around here is 
atrocious. (My personal phone is on Sprint, and it doesn't work reliably 
at about half of our tower locations, for instance.)


Based on cell coverage, I'll probably have to go with Alltel or (maybe) 
ATT. I've got more experience with Alltel's phones (that's what 
basically everyone else in the office uses) and know their coverage is 
pretty good in my service area; I'm just concerned about finding a device 
and software that will cover what I need.


David Smith
MVN.net

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Managing your network on the go-go-go!

2007-08-06 Thread David Sovereen
Alltell is all CDMA.  They have acquired a couple companies that were GSM, 
but they pretty quickly migrate custoemrs to CDMA handsets and replace the 
equipment at the towers.


Alltel/Verizon/Sprint = CDMA (no SIM cards)
ATT Wireless/Cingular and T-Mobile = GSM (SIM cards)

Dave

- Original Message - 
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Managing your network on the go-go-go!


I think the Alltel network around us is all GSM based which would mean, I 
would assume, that we could load a SIM card into any unlocked GSM device 
and use it on their network. Any reason why I might be wrong with this 
thinking? Anyone ever load a SIM card from an unlocked device for use on 
their home GSM network (be it Cingular or other)?

Scriv


David E. Smith wrote:

JohnnyO wrote:
I've used my Cingular 8125 to do SSH and Web based management I have 
not looked into what upgrades they have for this but it's been nice at 
times.


What SSH client are you using? (And does the keyboard actually have a 
Ctrl key?)


It's likely I'll still be stuck with a Blackberry because of cell 
coverage, sadly. (Around here, the best coverage by far is Alltel, who 
recently bought out local company First Cellular; ATT/Cingular has, by 
most accounts, pretty iffy coverage. And Alltel is all about the 
Blackberry. Either that or the Moto Q.)


I'll look into that one, though. Thanks for the reassurance that my idea 
isn't totally nuts. :)


David Smith
MVN.net


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




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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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] ISP Billing w/ multiple district taxes

2007-06-14 Thread David Sovereen
Platypus can do this.  Based on your Zip+4 requirement, your match rules may 
be lengthy to make sure you get 48640-1039 and 48640-1041 but not 
48640-1040.  Hopefully, they are more along the lines of 48640-0XXX, 
48640-1XXX, etc.


But definitely, Platypus does this.

Dave

- Original Message - 
From: Doug Ratcliffe [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:26 AM
Subject: [WISPA] ISP Billing w/ multiple district taxes



We are in the process of deploying some services which are subject to
communication taxes (local, county, state, USF) by zip-code (and some
plus-4) that vary based on a state-supplied table.  I don't care if it 
reads

the table, but rather I need to have a per-user or per-area tax-base setup
that I can put into each user, and possible importing of CDR records from 
an

external source.



Also, each tax area needs a monthly report of taxes collected to send to 
the

state.



Thanks

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Slow Internet across MT Router

2007-04-14 Thread David Sovereen
We use SBE DS-3 cards and have had zero lockups.  Currently on MT 2.9.41. 
Been running with them for about 6 months, knock on wood.  We have them on 
SuperMicro hardware, which tends to be pretty stable.  I mention that only 
in case it is an issue of card and motherboard combination.


Dave

- Original Message - 
From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 10:34 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Slow Internet across MT Router


Hello Sam,

Curious if both DS3 cards have the lockup problem?  You do still have two of
them, right? If so, it is unlikely you have two bad DS3 cards.  Especially
because if they are the ones you bought from me I know they are good!
grin

We never had any trouble with them interfacing our ATT DS3s.  Sure sounds
like a hardware issue or possibly MikroTik made a change in their code that
now causes this problem.  MikroTik has been known to make a change in their
drivers (unknowingly) and render an entire revision of make and model
interface useless.  Happened to us with Intel SC Fiber adapters.

Best,


Brad




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Sam Tetherow
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 4:04 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Slow Internet across MT Router

Ron, when I was at 2xT1 I was running it through a RB230 without any
issues for BW shaping (only  a couple of queues).  I don't think it is
MT in particular that is the problem.  Could be the specific hardware
that is the issue though.

I am currently running 45MB through a 3.0GHz MT box with an SBE
interface and it handles the bandwidth just fine, although I am having
some locking problems from time to time, but I think they are related to
the sbe DS3 card as opposed to MT itself.

   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless

Ron Wallace wrote:

To All,
I have had a good system. I have a 3 Mbps Bonded T1, 100 users. Right now

when I run a speed test to Speakeasy, it starts at 2.6 or2.7 mbps and
quickly windsdown to 15-20 kbps. This is only in the evening and from 7-9AM.
I have a MikroTik in P3 900MHz, w/ 500Mb of ram.

Thisonlyhappens across theMikroTik box.
Any ideas, Mycustopmers are pissed. Some Are threatening to quit.
PLEASE HELP, I'M A DUNCE.

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 Wireless List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

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


Re: [WISPA] How many of you actually use your own service?

2007-04-09 Thread David Sovereen
Not all owners are fortunate enough to be able to get their own service.  I 
have to use Charter cable because I cannot get my own service's signals.  I 
would switch in a heartbeat if I could.


Dave

- Original Message - 
From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] How many of you actually use your own service?


Agreed.  I was the first customer on my service, too...only game in town, 
now Qwest and Comcast.  I think it is an advantage to experience your own 
product, just not necessary.  The original comment was that it was 
'strange' for the CEO not to use his own service.  I'm saying that it's 
not that strange and not necessary, but it is helpful.  ;)


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

- Original Message - 
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] How many of you actually use your own service?


I was customer number 1 on my network. I still use my own connection to my 
home. One of my ex-employees used to tell me he liked the fact that I ate 
my own dogfood. I always thought that was a humorous metaphor.


I think it is good to use your own service so you can see what the 
service is like for your customer. If it works well then chances are your 
customers are happy. If it stinks then maybe you need to make changes. 
Monitoring tools are a good indicator of where you need to work on things 
but nothing beats using it yourself in my opinion.

Scriv




Blair Davis wrote:

Well, the reason I built my network was to GET an internet 
connection...


Ryan Spott wrote:


I always tell my clients that I use my own service and that I will
usually know before they do that things are slow or not working
because my family will call me MUCH faster than any client.

This builds trust with my clients.

...


Recently I was emailed by another WISP in my area and I noticed the
CEO was NOT using his own serviceStrange

So with all this being said, I was wondering... how many of you use 
your

own service?

ryan




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Our First WISP Consultant Vendor Member - Butch Evans

2007-04-03 Thread David Sovereen

I disagree completely.

The choice to use MT or StarOS has nothing to do with the hardware.  My 
decision to use MT was entirely based on the software features.  Some of my 
MTs run on Routerboards, others do not.  If the Routerboard hardware meets 
my needs at a price I like, I use it.  If it doesn't, I use something else. 
But I always use MT :-)


Dave


- Original Message - 
From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Our First WISP Consultant Vendor Member - Butch Evans


...

Mikrotik, StarOS, etc. are selling because of price. The extra features 
are just a bonus. :)


... 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Climbing Harness

2007-01-23 Thread David Sovereen
www.midwestunlimited.com.  The Elk River Eagle LE or LX harnesses are good 
and comfortable at a good price-point.  I would highly recommend NOT buying 
a used harness.  Your harness is to keep you from falling to your death and 
you don't want to rely on a used harness that you don't know the complete 
history/condition of.


Dave

- Original Message - 
From: Forbes Mercy [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 3:44 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Climbing Harness


Hello Fellow WISP's

I need to purchase a tower climbing harness.  If you have one to sell, 
great, if you know of a company that sells them that would be great too.


Thanks,
Forbes Mercy
President - Washington Broadband, Inc.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.5/645 - Release Date: 1/22/2007

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] Good Tower Climbers / Installers Needed

2006-10-17 Thread David Sovereen
I have equipment that I need installed on about 20 towers throughout Central 
Michigan and Northeast Wisconsin.  We have one tower company that we really, 
really like, but they are booked up solid for months (we've already waited a 
month in hopes something would open up, but no luck).  Does anyone have 
recommendations?  I have 6 new towers where 5.7 GHz backhauls and 2.4 GHz 
and 900 MHz APs need to be installed, and 14 towers needing augmenting, 
where new 900 MHz APs need to be installs.  The 900 MHz antennas we are 
using are MTi Horizontally-polarized Omnis, which are pretty big (at least 
compared to anything we've used before).


Ideally, a company that can fabricate mounts on-site (which our preferred 
company, St. Paul Tower, does) would be ideal, as we are installing on 
towers, as well as water towers, grain elevators, and smokestacks.


All recommendations are very welcome.  My contact info for any tower people 
on this list is mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and phone 989-837-3790 ext 
151.


My apologies if solicitations of this nature are inappropriate for this 
list.


Thanks,

Dave 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] [Fwd: Durbin introduces bill toencouragehighspeedinternet access in rural areas]

2006-08-09 Thread David Sovereen
Since when do the people on this list support taxation, waste, and
government subsidies?  Why should the burden of providing high-speed
Internet to people in underserved (typically rural) areas fall on the
shoulders of taxpayers?  I don't want my taxes to pay to expand your network
or for Joe User to get your service.

If people want services, they should live in a city.  If they want to live
in rural areas, they should do so with the understanding that services
(water, sewer, EMS, schools, cable, high-speed Internet, just about anything
and everything) are harder to come by and sometimes more expensive.  No one
makes people live in the country.  People choose to on their own, and they
should take responsibility for the costs and/or lack of services associated
with that decision.

Just my own 2 cents.

Dave

989-837-3790 x 151
989-837-3780 fax

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.mercury.net

129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640
- Original Message - 
From: Chadd Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 8:36 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] [Fwd: Durbin introduces bill
toencouragehighspeedinternet access in rural areas]


 IMO they need to start giving money to the end users to pay for hookup and
 installation. Stop paying to expand WISP's networks and give the money
where
 it is needed, if you want a bigger network pay for it out of your own
 pocket. In IL I doubt you could drive from Chicago to St.Louis and not be
 able to hook up to a WISP.


 Give money to the people who need to put up a 45ft tower to get access.

 Thanks,
 Chadd

  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick
  Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 5:54 PM
  To: 'WISPA General List'
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] [Fwd: Durbin introduces bill to
  encouragehighspeedinternet access in rural areas]
 
 
  Don't forget the 3rd great lie...I'm from the government and I'm
  here to help
  you
 
  :-)
 
 
  Jeff Broadwick
  ImageStream
  800-813-5123 x106

 --
 No virus found in this outgoing message.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.7/411 - Release Date: 8/7/2006

 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] [Fwd: Durbin introduces billtoencouragehighspeedinternet access in rural areas]

2006-08-09 Thread David Sovereen
Your assumption is correct.  Using your example of wheat, if you let free
markets operate, then farmers who couldn't survive growing wheat would stop
growing wheat and switch to a crop that would make them more money.  I
believe that all government subsidies should be eliminated and that we
should pay market prices for goods and services.  Government subsidies are
nothing more than price manipulation and welfare for businesses.  They cost
taxpayers more money than it would if we just paid the market price for
products and services, because there is the added cost of government
oversight and dispursement of funds.

Dave

989-837-3790 x 151
989-837-3780 fax

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.mercury.net

129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640
- Original Message - 
From: Cliff Leboeuf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Fwd: Durbin introduces
billtoencouragehighspeedinternet access in rural areas]


 So David,

 I guess it is fair for me to assume that you don't agree the the
government
 paying some NOT to grow wheat or NOT to raise pigs so that those that DO
can
 survive on a reasonable profit margin and not be flooded by over
production
 creating too much product for not enough demand...?

 :)


 On 8/9/06 8:57 AM, David Sovereen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Since when do the people on this list support taxation, waste, and
  government subsidies?  Why should the burden of providing high-speed
  Internet to people in underserved (typically rural) areas fall on the
  shoulders of taxpayers?  I don't want my taxes to pay to expand your
network
  or for Joe User to get your service.
 
  If people want services, they should live in a city.  If they want to
live
  in rural areas, they should do so with the understanding that services
  (water, sewer, EMS, schools, cable, high-speed Internet, just about
anything
  and everything) are harder to come by and sometimes more expensive.  No
one
  makes people live in the country.  People choose to on their own, and
they
  should take responsibility for the costs and/or lack of services
associated
  with that decision.
 
  Just my own 2 cents.
 
  Dave
 
  989-837-3790 x 151
  989-837-3780 fax
 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  www.mercury.net
 
  129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640
  - Original Message -
  From: Chadd Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 8:36 PM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] [Fwd: Durbin introduces bill
  toencouragehighspeedinternet access in rural areas]
 
 
  IMO they need to start giving money to the end users to pay for hookup
and
  installation. Stop paying to expand WISP's networks and give the money
  where
  it is needed, if you want a bigger network pay for it out of your own
  pocket. In IL I doubt you could drive from Chicago to St.Louis and not
be
  able to hook up to a WISP.
 
 
  Give money to the people who need to put up a 45ft tower to get access.
 
  Thanks,
  Chadd
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick
  Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 5:54 PM
  To: 'WISPA General List'
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] [Fwd: Durbin introduces bill to
  encouragehighspeedinternet access in rural areas]
 
 
  Don't forget the 3rd great lie...I'm from the government and I'm
  here to help
  you
 
  :-)
 
 
  Jeff Broadwick
  ImageStream
  800-813-5123 x106
 
  --
  No virus found in this outgoing message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.7/411 - Release Date:
8/7/2006
 
  -- 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 

 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Spectrum Analyzer

2006-06-20 Thread David Sovereen



I'm interested in a unit, but haven't got a 
response. Is [EMAIL PROTECTED] the 
right address?

Dave

989-837-3790 x 151989-837-3780 fax

[EMAIL PROTECTED]www.mercury.net

129 Ashman St, Midland, MI 48640

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Patrick 
  Shoemaker 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 11:28 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Spectrum 
  Analyzer
  There is a group purchase for these going on over at the 
  Broadband Reports WISP forum. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16213716~mode=flatI 
  will be purchasing one to try it out. I figure for about $1000 it 
  ought to be worth it, especially for WISP use. I expect some clumsy 
  features and inconveniences, but I'm willing to live with that for the 
  price. With the group purchase we will save a couple hundred 
  bucks. If you're interested, get in touch with John (binary1000) 
  quickly as he will be placing orders soon.PatrickBrian 
  Rohrbacher wrote: I am looking at the Spectran HF-4080. looks like 
  a nice little handheld Spectrum Analyzer for the 
  price. http://test1.contenttest.net/Spektrumanalysator_en.shtml# 
  (look  bottom left) With the extra ram for plotting, 
  it is about $1000 US. Is it as good piece of hardware for the 
  price? Brian-- 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: 
  http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread David Sovereen



I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's 
position of less regulation and allowing network operators operate their 
networks how they want is the right approach. Net neutrality legislation 
opens the door for content companies and your subscribers to force open and 
equal access to all content on the Internet.

How many WISPs on this listare limiting P2P 
traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite... I am.

How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP 
traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite. I am. And I 
only prioritize VoIP traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP 
traffic from Vonage or anyone else.

How many WISPs on this list are filtering NetBIOS, 
RPC, and other traffic deemed malicious? I'll bite... I am 
again.

Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued over, 
but I hope you see my point.

These controls are important for me to manage my 
network and ensure a quality of service my customers expect.

Net neutrality takes these controls 
away.

Dave

989-837-3790 x 151989-837-3780 fax

[EMAIL PROTECTED]www.mercury.net

129 Ashman St, Midland, MI 48640

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Larry Yunker 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General 
  List 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:56 
PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
  Against Net Neutrality
  The WCA is showing its true colors.. the WCA stands for 
  the interests of Verizon, ATT Wireless, Sprint, and the other big 
  Cell Carriers (many of which incidentally are owned by ATT, Bell 
  South, and Verizon RBOCs). With statements like this, I don't 
  believe that the WCA will ever be looking out for the interests unlicensed 
  WISPs.If you think that blocking net neutrality is the path to 
  "controlling your own network", you have missed the entire point. 
  Without effective net neutrality legislation, the RBOCs and the CableCos 
  will own the internet and tariff the hell out of the traffic that flows 
  through it. It will be one more nail in the coffin of the mom-n-pop 
  operator that can't afford to pay tariffs to get their subscribers access 
  to "premium" content. It will drive the customers of small operators 
  to switch to the RBOCs and CableCos because those networks will be the 
  only "fast" networks or the only ones that have "access" to everything on 
  the internet.- Larry Yunker- Original Message - 
  From: "Peter R." [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: "WISPA General 
  List" wireless@wispa.orgSent: Tuesday, 
  June 20, 2006 12:32 PMSubject: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net 
  Neutrality WCA Weighs In Against Net 
  Neutrality http://www.telecomweb.com/tnd/17310.html 
  http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/telecomweb.com/;sz=180x150;ord=021450 
  The *Wireless Communications Association International* (WCA) has come 
   down against network-neutrality legislation, joining one of the 
  pressure  groups that has been opposing moves in *Congress  
  /search/?query=Congress* on the polarizing issue (/TelecomWeb news 
   break, /June 15). Representing about 250 companies in 
  broadband wireless carriage and  manufacturing, WCA has teamed with 
  the recently formed  *NETCompetition.org* group organized by Scott 
  Cleland, president of  *Precursor LLC*, and which bills itself as an 
  "e-forum" for debate but  clearly positions itself among the vocal 
  anti-net-neutrality factions.WCA  claims its motive is to promote 
  growth and innovation in advanced  communications over broadband 
  wireless by protecting the business from  net-neutrality 
  regulation "With spectrum a scarce and expensive resource, it 
  is imperative that  wireless broadband providers remain free to manage 
  their own networks,"  said WCA President Andrew Kreig in a prepared 
  statement. "Net-neutrality  regulation would discourage innovation and 
  investment in more competitive  broadband choices to all Americans. 
  Our member companies are investing  heavily in WiMAX 
  /search/?query=WiMAX or other '4G' types of  next-generation 
  broadband competitive alternatives. Our companies are part  of the 
  competitive solution, not part of the regulatory problem." 
  Other supporters of NETCompetition.org include the *American Cable  
  Association*, *CTIA-The Wireless Association*, the *National Cable  
   Telecommunications* *Association*, the *United States 
  Telecommunications  Association*, *Advance/Neuhouse Communications*, 
  *Alltel*, *ATT*,  *BellSouth*, *Cingular*, *Comcast*, *Qwest 
  /search/?query=Qwest  Communications International*, *Sprint*, 
  *Time Warner Cable*, *Verizon  /search/?query=Verizon 
  Communications* and *Verizon Wireless*. With the WCA's 
  membership, Cleland remarks that next-generation wireless  broadband 
  companies are concerned net neutrality regulation would  discourage 
  investment, adding, "More innovation and competition are the  
  antidotes for net-neutrality concerns, not backward-looking government 
   micromanagement." The development comes after key 
  *House* 

Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K

2006-06-20 Thread David Sovereen
Title: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K



While it may sound great to have a "double standard 
law," it isn't realistic. Recent FCC ruling trends tell us 
that.

For years, telephone companies have been heavily 
regulated while cable companies have not.

DSL was subject to regulation. Cable was 
not.

In a way, this brings us back to the Brand X 
Internet Supreme Court Decision. The FCC deregulated DSL and is working 
toward regulatory parity for all broadband services, regardless of medium. 
The FCC wants all broadband services -- cable, DSL, wireless, satellite, 
broadband over powerlines,whatever you can think of --to be subject 
to the same rules and regulations.

Expecting/lobbying/hoping for rules to apply to 
cable and DSL and not to wirelessjust isn't realistic.

We need to support that which is good for all 
broadband providers.

If Matt Loitta doesn't want to filter, prioritize, 
or restrict his network, I fully support his decision to run his network that 
way. If there were legislation being proposed that required operators to 
filter, prioritize, restrict, or otherwise manipulate network services, I would 
be against it, and I would support Matt's right to run his network how he wants 
to. Matt's network is Matt's network. He built it. He designed 
it. He can do with is as he wants. My network is my network. I 
built it. I designed it. I feel it is my right to do with is as I 
want. If my customers don't like my service, they can sign up or another 
service. Letsupply and demand and free-market economics decide who 
wins and who fails, not government. Don't let the government regulate what 
we do and how we do it. I hope that all of you (and WISPA) will support my 
right to run my network my way and for others to run their network their 
way.

According to USIIA, this issue is largely dead and 
not likely to see any action this election year. Nonetheless, I'd like to 
know WISPA's position on this. This is an issue that, if passed, would 
have effects on many of WISPA's members. This is the type of issue that, I 
think, WISPA should be encouraging its members to write congresspeople 
about.

Regards,

Dave

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Tom 
  DeReggi 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:56 
PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - 
  was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
  
  The secret of Net Neutrality is that there is no 
  harm in NOT HAVING NET NEutrality for under dog small providers. Market 
  pressures FORCE us to not unnecessisarilly block access. If we block, 
  and they want, they switch.The trouble come in when there is 
  monopoly or large scale advantage.Just because one does not like the 
  actions of theirmonoply provider, does not mean they will ahve the 
  option to switch based on the fact that if they did, they risk being block to 
  a much larger group of people.Net Neutrality is required to 
  protect against monster companies unscrupulously controling the market (or 
  Internet ). Thus opening up the arguement that a double standard law 
  easilly could be justified, controllingTelcos and Cable companies but 
  not small independants.
  
  Tom DeReggiRapidDSL  Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless 
  Broadband
  
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Stephen Patrick 
To: 'WISPA General List' 
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:48 
PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps 
- was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K

Nice one Jeff... Absolutely 
right - and our over-priced currency deserves some 
stick, not us (the people)  
:-) 
-Original Message- From: 
Jeff Broadwick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 20 June 2006 21:07 To: 'WISPA 
General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and 
fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K 

"I thought it worth chipping in - just my £0.01's 
worth."  Now that's 
harsh...the English Pence isn't worth 2 cents...yet. 
Figuring it correctly: 
"just my 1.0871p worth" 
:-) 
-- 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.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: 
http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
  
  

  -- WISPA Wireless List: 
  wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: 
  http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] looking for a device

2006-06-13 Thread David Sovereen
Hi Matt,

Actually, our testing and real-world experience shows that convergence is
faster in bridged RSTP network than it is in a routed OSPF network.

We ran OSPF on our wireless network, and still do on our wired network.
With default settings of a hello interval of 10 seconds and a dead router
interval of 40 seconds, recovery from an outage and need to re-route, as you
would expect, takes just over 40 seconds.  We run with quicker settings on
our network: a hello interval of 2 and a dead router interval of 12.  As
would be expected, recovery from an outage and need to re-route takes just
over 12 seconds.

Contrast that with our RSTP bridged network, where we broke a backhaul and
forced traffic to route around the outage.  The new route was 5 tower hops
longer than the primary route, and it took about 6 seconds for traffic to
move around the outage.

I haven't done tests using STP, only RSTP, and my understanding is that STP
is significantly slower.  In that case, you may be right.  Also, if you are
running a routing protocol other than OSPF, especially something that has
fast-reroute capabilities, you very well might do better with it than with
RSTP.  But in Mikrotik, OSPF and RSTP are your main options when discussing
dynamic routing versus dynamic bridging, and RSTP really does converge
quicker.

Dave

989-837-3790 x 151
989-837-3780 fax

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.mercury.net

129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640
- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device


 Paul Hendry wrote:

 We too have been looking at moving from routed to a switched Mikrotik for
 the core network but the unknown quantity seems to be if there are any
 latency or speed issues related to the move. A true switched network is
 faster than a routed network as the switching is done at a hardware level
 but in Mikrotik I believe both switching and routed is done in software.
 What have you seen?
 
 
 
 Faster in what way? Certainly, a routed network is going to beat a
 switched network in terms of covergence speed.

 -Matt
 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] looking for a device

2006-06-13 Thread David Sovereen
Hi Paul,

Regardless of whether you run routed or switched, the speed is about the
same.  Unlike a hardware switch that has special processors to handle
traffic at wire speeds, a 10GB/s backplane, etc, Mikrotik runs on
off-the-shelf PC hardware.  The processing power needed to get a packet from
port A to port B is about the same regardless of whether you route or
switch.

We haven't seen much of a performance difference between the two.  A link
that was 3 ms before seems to be 3 ms now.  A multi-hop link that was 6 ms
before seems to be about 6 ms now.

For us, the advantages were:

1.  Centralized customer management.  All DHCP and PPPoE handled at a single
point.  To make changes, we have only one place to visit.

2.  Ability to roam.  We run the same SSID on all towers and sectors.  Now
when people roam from one tower to another, their session will follow them
seamlessly.

3.  Reduced CPU and memory consumption on the Mikrotiks on towers.  NAT
(connection tracking) and PPPoE are especially CPU and memory intensive.
With each AP doing these functions, some of our busy towers were getting
pegged at 100% CPU -- not a good thing.  Those same towers are now averaging
25% CPU and never seem to go above 60% CPU.

4.  Get rid of Mikrotik's buggy OSPF.  We love OSPF and use it extensively
on our network.  But Mikrotik's OSPF implementation has been buggy since day
1 of RouterOS 2.9.  We found that OSPF worked reliably under RouterOS 2.8,
but under 2.9, we've seen boxes that have all neighbors and no routes, one
neighbor (itself) and no routes, no neighbors at all, reset continuously
(exstart/init sequence), etc.

Everyone's situation is different, but for us, it was definitely the right
decision to make.

Regards,

Dave

989-837-3790 x 151
989-837-3780 fax

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.mercury.net

129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640
- Original Message - 
From: Paul Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 8:03 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] looking for a device


 We too have been looking at moving from routed to a switched Mikrotik for
 the core network but the unknown quantity seems to be if there are any
 latency or speed issues related to the move. A true switched network is
 faster than a routed network as the switching is done at a hardware level
 but in Mikrotik I believe both switching and routed is done in software.
 What have you seen?

 P.

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of David Sovereen
 Sent: 13 June 2006 04:12
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device

 We just completed converting our network from routed to bridged.  Where
each

 AP (we run Mikrotik) used to do its own DHCP and PPPoE to customers and
 speak OSPF to the network, the APs (still Mikrotik) now bridge traffic to
a
 regional Mikrotik that handles PPPoE and DHCP for that region.  We are
using

 RSTP.  In this way, people can roam from one tower to another and their
DHCP

 lease is still good at the next tower.  A region for us to 3 to 4
counties.

 We converted our first region about a month ago and finished the last one
 last weekend.  We're very pleased with the results so far.

 Dave

 - Original Message - 
 From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 9:22 PM
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] looking for a device


 It is worth noting that you lose the benefits of routing protocols when
you
 bridge your network

 Sure, there's always RSTP... (heh)

 Many larger wireless / Wifi based architecture these days seem to be
 favoring a layer 3 tunneling / handoff method over a bridged layer 2
network

 -Charles

 ---
 CWLab
 Technology Architects
 http://www.cwlab.com



 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
 Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 5:30 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device


 To clarify

 The term I referred to as Double VLAN is not the technically correct
name
 (thats just what I call it), it is actually called Q in Q as stated by
 several in this thread.

 One of the reasons this is valuable is for a wholesale network. It
basically

 allows you to create a single VLAN end to end across your network for a
 subscriber or reseller, and still use VLAN for your local needs to operate
 your network.

 I'll give an example of where I might use VLAN for my network need. I have
a

 single fiber connection from the basement to the roof.  On the roof I have
a

 VLAN switch and 6 sector radios. I have a router in the basement.  I could
 then seperate data between the different radio traffic by giving a unique
 VLAN to the Ethernet port that each sector radio connects to, and route
 between them in my basement router.

 I'll give an example of where I'd use a VLAN end to end for a reseller.
 Reseller has

Re: [WISPA] looking for a device

2006-06-12 Thread David Sovereen
We just completed converting our network from routed to bridged.  Where each 
AP (we run Mikrotik) used to do its own DHCP and PPPoE to customers and 
speak OSPF to the network, the APs (still Mikrotik) now bridge traffic to a 
regional Mikrotik that handles PPPoE and DHCP for that region.  We are using 
RSTP.  In this way, people can roam from one tower to another and their DHCP 
lease is still good at the next tower.  A region for us to 3 to 4 counties.


We converted our first region about a month ago and finished the last one 
last weekend.  We're very pleased with the results so far.


Dave

- Original Message - 
From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 9:22 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] looking for a device


It is worth noting that you lose the benefits of routing protocols when you
bridge your network

Sure, there's always RSTP... (heh)

Many larger wireless / Wifi based architecture these days seem to be
favoring a layer 3 tunneling / handoff method over a bridged layer 2 network

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 5:30 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device


To clarify

The term I referred to as Double VLAN is not the technically correct name
(thats just what I call it), it is actually called Q in Q as stated by
several in this thread.

One of the reasons this is valuable is for a wholesale network. It basically

allows you to create a single VLAN end to end across your network for a
subscriber or reseller, and still use VLAN for your local needs to operate
your network.

I'll give an example of where I might use VLAN for my network need. I have a

single fiber connection from the basement to the roof.  On the roof I have a

VLAN switch and 6 sector radios. I have a router in the basement.  I could
then seperate data between the different radio traffic by giving a unique
VLAN to the Ethernet port that each sector radio connects to, and route
between them in my basement router.

I'll give an example of where I'd use a VLAN end to end for a reseller.
Reseller has a connection between me and them at one point on my network.
The reseller might provide the backbone and IPs. The client routes the
customers traffic to a specific VLAN when entering my network. I then have
that VLAN configured across my network until reaches the end user's building

router that terminates the VLAN.

Now what happens when the resellers customer (example 2) resides in the
building (example 1)?  Normally two VLANs can't exist simultaneously as teh
switch wouldn;t know which ID to tag data with.  Q in Q VLAN would allow one

VLAN ID to reside in side of another VLAN.  Its the same concept as
tunnelling, except for its not.

Now how does this apply to radios that support Q in Q? Depends. Use your
imagination. The first problem is can the radio pass Q in Q VLAN data?
Second can it tag it? Being able to tag VLAN data at the radio level can be
extremely useful. First off it avoids having to configure a second device
(VLAN switch) that complicates the automation of configurations.  Part of
the Idea is that CLECs and Governement, are all high on Security, and they
do not want to have to coordinate complex IP models between their systems
and the wholesalers, instead they want to be able to send traffic LAyer2 and

seperate traffic so one client does not have the abilty to see the other
client's traffic.  Its sort of an Ethernet way of doing a Private Virtual
Circuit.

The only problem with VLAN is you need to have every component of you
network that passes VLANs to be able to pass large packets so Full MTU can
be delivered to clients. This is one of the limits to Wifi and regular
switches, is many Wifi devices and all non managed switches do not pass
large packets.

Radio like Trango and Alvarion (with Q in Q support) have the abilty to pass

large packets.

The other advantage of VLAN is that when used across a PtMP design and VLAN
support at CPE, it allows doing remote banwdith management based on the
customers circuit ID, and having a way to distinguish and differentiate the
data.

Q in Q, gives the provider flexibilty on how and when they would like to use

VLAN and in multiple ways simultaneously.

Its uncertain how Q in Q will be used for sure, as VLAN does add much
complexity over say a basic bridged design.  Part of the benefit, is that
redundancy is not always supported in an ideal way when VLAN is used. By
allowing a VLAN end to end encapsulated in the other packets, it potentially

could allow avoiding the pitfalls that limit redundancy by having the end
locations (the reseller and the client) the one tagging  the VLAN and
knowing that that VLAN info survives any other VLAN tagging that may happen
on the network, or for 

Re: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this?

2006-06-05 Thread David Sovereen
I agree with your sentiments completely.

One needs to ask, though, why aren't ISPs supporting WISPA?  The answer is
more than likely the same answer most small businesses give when asked why
they don't join industry associations: it's not worthwhile... it costs more
money than the benefits of membership are worth.

My company is not a member of WISPA.  And at this point, I don't see what
benefit membership in WISPA would give me.  I'm a believer in the strength
of numbers and joining ranks for greater good.  That's why I support NFIB
and USIIA, as well as local organizations in my state and community.

Why should I send $250 to WISPA?

Dave

989-837-3790 x 151
989-837-3780 fax

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.mercury.net

129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640
- Original Message - 
From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this?


 The problem with all of this is that most ISP's wireless or land line
 historically do not get involved in a trade association and work
 together for the common good.

 Land line ISP's didn't join together and wisps are not joining together
 either.

 Here WISPA has been created and hardly anyone is taking advantage of
 joining WISPA and trying to get anything done.

 This is the sad thing that is discouraging, that an organization has
 been created and nobody is taking advantage of it.
 It's also discouraging to hear that some people say or imply that WISPA
 is a good old boys club run by insiders, when in actuality WISPA is an
 organization wide open that just about anyone in the wisp business can
 join run for office get elected and take charge.

 Very disappointing, and this is what makes me scream when I hear posts
 like Roberts the other day accusing board members of getting paid with
 perks or Marks suggestion this morning that the board is on the inside
 with this stuff.

 You guys, the wisps that are out in the fields doing the wisp business
 should be trying harder to get the entire wisp community to join this
 organization and to get something accomplished.

 My poll for a working group for muni wireless had 2 respondents.
 Only 2 wisps are interested or think they need help with muni wireless?
 Hard to believe.



 -- 
 George Rogato

 Welcome to WISPA

 www.wispa.org

 http://signup.wispa.org/
 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] USIIA

2006-06-05 Thread David Sovereen
Peter,

I worked with C.L. Hoewing when I was on the board.  He was thoughtful and
insightful, but had no more influence on USIIA's activities or policies than
anyone else.

 Excuse me, but USIIA has never been a friend of the independent ISP.
 USIIA and Dave McClure have pro RBOC on almost every issue.

Care to give some examples?  USIIA's official positions are very
pro-independent ISP.  You can find them here:
http://www.usiia.org/legis/legis.htm.

The only policy that I can think of that you might misconstrue to be
pro-RBOC is the one of eliminating the requirement that RBOCs open their DSL
networks to independent ISPs.  I was on the board when the Brand X Internet
case was being debated.  I supported USIIA's official position.

For those who aren't familiar with the Brand X Internet case, Brand X is the
name of an ISP that wanted to force open access to the cable networks so
that they could deliver high-speed Internet over the cable network.  The
case went to the Supreme Court.

USIIA's position was and is that there needs to be regulatory parity between
broadband network types.  That means DSL and cable (and wireless and
satellite and broadband over power lines, etc) need to operate under the
same set of rules.  Up till then, DSL networks were regulated (and forced
open to independent ISPs) and cable networks were not regulated (and not
open to independent ISPs).

USIIA's also took the position that less regulation is better.  Rather than
add regulation to the cable networks (which would certainly be later
expanded to regulate wireless and satellite and broadband over power line
networks, etc), USIIA supported removal of regulation of DSL networks.

Yes, that might seem like pro-RBOC.  But it was good for the independent
WISP.  Had the Supreme Court ruling gone the other way, we'd be looking at
laws that would force wireless network operators, like those on this list,
to open their networks to their competitors.

Dave

989-837-3790 x 151
989-837-3780 fax

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.mercury.net

129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640
- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] USIIA


 Excuse me, but USIIA has never been a friend of the independent ISP.
 USIIA and Dave McClure have pro RBOC on almost every issue.
 Verizon sits on your board!  (http://www.usiia.org/about/board.htm)

 Regards,

 Peter
 RAD-INFO, Inc.

 David Sovereen wrote:

  Many of you seem to be of the belief that the proposed bill requires
  you to keep records of the content of subscribers.  Simply put, that
  is NOT THE CASE.  While I do not know the specific details of the
  various proposals, I do know that none of them are expecting ISPs to
  keep copies of content accessed.
 
  The proposed bills are requiring that ISPs keep track of what
  subscriber used what IP address(es).  One version of the bill wants
  this data retained for one year; another version for two years.  For
  ISPs using RADIUS for accounting or making static IP assignments, this
  is pretty easy to do.  I don't know what requirements, if any, are
  being proposed for subscribers placed behind a NAT firewall shared by
  many subscribers.
 
  I understand that WISPA is an organization still in its infancy, and
  they don't currently have the resources to lobby congress.  But
  there IS an organization speaking to congress on your bahalf on this
  issue: The United States Internet Industry Association.
 
  As a former member of the board of directors, I can assure you that
  this is a small, but vocal organization, and they are representing
  YOUR interests.  Data retention requirements have been on USIIA's
  radar for quite some time.  On Feburary 17, 2005 (last year) the board
  of directors adopted this policy as USIIA's official position on data
  retention: http://www.usiia.org/legis/dataret.html
 
  If you'd like to support an organization that does speak to congress
  and is representing your interests, you might consider giving USIIA
  your financial.  For the record, their board receives no
  compensation.  The only paid employee is David McClure, their
  full-time President and CEO (and lobbyist, but he doesn't go by that
  title).
 
  Dave
 

 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this?

2006-06-05 Thread David Sovereen
Where can I find out what WISPA's official positions are?  Where can I see
the letters and actions WISPA has sent on behalf of its members?  The root
of my questions is, How do I know that the money I spend is making a
difference?

I've joined organizations before.  I send them my check or give them a
credit card number and never hear from them again... until they want more
money.  I don't support my local Chamber of Commerce for this exact reason.
What does my local Chamber of Commerce do to deserve my money?  After a
year, I didn't know, so I cancelled my membership.

Dave

989-837-3790 x 151
989-837-3780 fax

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.mercury.net

129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640
- Original Message - 
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this?


 I'm really at a bit of a loss as to how to deal with your question David.

 What's a trade association do for you?  (You being generic here)  The
 idea that the question was asked indicates to me that one doesn't
understand
 what a trade group is for.

 It's not, at least not at first, there to put money in your pocket.  Nor
is
 it there to help you control your costs.  Oh sure, most of those things
can
 and will happen at some point.  But it takes time, people and money to
make
 any of that happen.

 At this stage WISPA is there to protect our industry  If you don't
 support WISPA we'll not be able to have any voice at all at the FCC or in
 congress.  Especially the FCC.

 You see, we talked to folks at the FCC before we set WISPA up.  They made
it
 clear that they'd much rather deal with a trade org. than many
individuals.
 Seems that they don't want to deal with the petty differences of opinion
 either!  They want a stand all hashed out before it gets to them wherever
 that's possible.

 No one should, at this stage of the game, be asking what WISPA will do for
 them.  You should all be asking what you can do for WISPA.

 Dialup ISPs took it in the shorts far more often than they ever should
have.
 I'm in no mood to put up with that with wireless too.  It's mostly a
safety
 in numbers thing.

 We deliberately made the dues so low that there's NO reason people can't
 join.  Heck, on principal alone people should be flocking to us.

 If you are one of those frustrated that WISPA isn't doing enough, join the
 club.  We're all frustrated about that.  But just how many more hundreds
 (thousands) of hours should I have to take away from my business and
my
 family when others won't lift a finger?  How does the saying go?  United
we
 stand, divided we fall.  Are those who haven't joined uniters or dividers?

 That help?
 marlon

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



 - Original Message - 
 From: David Sovereen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 7:33 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this?


 I agree with your sentiments completely.
 
  One needs to ask, though, why aren't ISPs supporting WISPA?  The
answer
  is
  more than likely the same answer most small businesses give when asked
why
  they don't join industry associations: it's not worthwhile... it costs
  more
  money than the benefits of membership are worth.
 
  My company is not a member of WISPA.  And at this point, I don't see
what
  benefit membership in WISPA would give me.  I'm a believer in the
strength
  of numbers and joining ranks for greater good.  That's why I support
NFIB
  and USIIA, as well as local organizations in my state and community.
 
  Why should I send $250 to WISPA?
 
  Dave
 
  989-837-3790 x 151
  989-837-3780 fax
 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  www.mercury.net
 
  129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640
  - Original Message - 
  From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 5:46 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this?
 
 
  The problem with all of this is that most ISP's wireless or land line
  historically do not get involved in a trade association and work
  together for the common good.
 
  Land line ISP's didn't join together and wisps are not joining together
  either.
 
  Here WISPA has been created and hardly anyone is taking advantage of
  joining WISPA and trying to get anything done.
 
  This is the sad thing that is discouraging, that an organization has
  been created and nobody is taking advantage of it.
  It's also discouraging to hear that some people say or imply that WISPA
  is a good old boys club run by insiders, when in actuality WISPA is an
  organization wide open that just about

Re: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this?

2006-06-05 Thread David Sovereen
I've only been on the list for about four weeks.  I learned about it at the
Mikrotik User Meeting in Dallas from a few of the other attendees.

Since I've been on, there hasn't been any discussion of what WISPA is doing
on the legislative front.  If all of the good stuff is hiding in the members
only area, and you don't tell people about the good stuff hiding in there on
your public web site, how are enticing people to join?  If you want people's
money, you need to market to them.

I finally made it through the USIIA Bulletin.  According to them, the data
retention bill isn't likely to be passed.  Quote, The reality is that such
legislation would never pass the Congress, and that the DOJ will likely back
down from the issue in the face of public criticism and concerns.  If that
weren't the case, I'd probably get a USIIA Alert asking me to e-mail my
congresspeople.  I feel this type of information is valuable.

Dave

989-837-3790 x 151
989-837-3780 fax

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.mercury.net

129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640
- Original Message - 
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this?


 You just need to pay attention here and on the private list.

 It would be nice if someone had the time to work on the web site more.  So
 that everyone would know what we're going right now!  But those of us
 working are too busy doing and have no time for bragging about it.  grin

 Watch and learn Dave.  One thing I'm very proud of is that WISPA has never
 hid anything that it does.  We are the most open group I've ever been
 around.

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



 - Original Message - 
 From: David Sovereen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 10:58 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this?


  Where can I find out what WISPA's official positions are?  Where can I
see
  the letters and actions WISPA has sent on behalf of its members?  The
root
  of my questions is, How do I know that the money I spend is making a
  difference?
 
  I've joined organizations before.  I send them my check or give them a
  credit card number and never hear from them again... until they want
more
  money.  I don't support my local Chamber of Commerce for this exact
  reason.
  What does my local Chamber of Commerce do to deserve my money?  After a
  year, I didn't know, so I cancelled my membership.
 
  Dave
 
  989-837-3790 x 151
  989-837-3780 fax
 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  www.mercury.net
 
  129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640
  - Original Message - 
  From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 1:33 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this?
 
 
  I'm really at a bit of a loss as to how to deal with your question
David.
 
  What's a trade association do for you?  (You being generic here)
The
  idea that the question was asked indicates to me that one doesn't
  understand
  what a trade group is for.
 
  It's not, at least not at first, there to put money in your pocket.
Nor
  is
  it there to help you control your costs.  Oh sure, most of those things
  can
  and will happen at some point.  But it takes time, people and money to
  make
  any of that happen.
 
  At this stage WISPA is there to protect our industry  If you don't
  support WISPA we'll not be able to have any voice at all at the FCC or
in
  congress.  Especially the FCC.
 
  You see, we talked to folks at the FCC before we set WISPA up.  They
made
  it
  clear that they'd much rather deal with a trade org. than many
  individuals.
  Seems that they don't want to deal with the petty differences of
opinion
  either!  They want a stand all hashed out before it gets to them
wherever
  that's possible.
 
  No one should, at this stage of the game, be asking what WISPA will do
  for
  them.  You should all be asking what you can do for WISPA.
 
  Dialup ISPs took it in the shorts far more often than they ever should
  have.
  I'm in no mood to put up with that with wireless too.  It's mostly a
  safety
  in numbers thing.
 
  We deliberately made the dues so low that there's NO reason people
can't
  join.  Heck, on principal alone people should be flocking to us.
 
  If you are one of those frustrated that WISPA isn't doing enough, join
  the
  club.  We're all frustrated about that.  But just how many more
hundreds
  (thousands) of hours should I have to take away from my business
and
  my
  family when others won't lift a finger?  How does the saying go?
United
  we

Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Virtual AP

2006-06-04 Thread David Sovereen

Hi Paul,

With Nstreme, at least as I use it with polling, there is not a way to see 
retransmits.  I mentioned this in my previous post:



You can quantify the number of retransmits on a per-client basis in

Mikrotik

APs operating in 802.11a/b/g mode (but not Nstreme) by going to

Wireless -

Registration, double-clicking the client, and going to the Statistics tab.


With regular 802.11a/b/g, the radios transmit and receive only when there is 
a packet to be sent.  One packet is sent in each RF/wireless ethernet/Hw 
(hardware) frame.  So one packet = one Hw (hardware) frame.  If there is 
more than one Hw frame, it's because Mikrotik handed the packet to the 
wireless card hardware, it sent it, didn't get the Ack, and sent it again. 
That's how hardware frames become higher than software frames/packets.


Mikrotik doesn't publish the guts of the Nstreme protocol, so I can't speak 
too specifically about it.  I know that Nstreme is capable of putting 
multiple packets into a single frame.  This *might* cause the number of 
hardware frames to be LESS than software frames, but I haven't tested that 
and am not sure of it.  In my experience, hardware frames is always MORE 
than software frames.  I use polling.  I haven't done any testing, but my 
guess is that the polling mechanism in Nstreme causes there to be constant 
hardware frames, as the AP is constantly talking to the clients and asking, 
do you have data to transmit? causing there to be hardware frames when 
there are no software trames being transmitted.


I haven't tried this, but disabling polling and putting framer-policy to 
none might get software and hardware frame counts to a one-to-one ratio 
except for retransmits.  Changing these settings will cause all clients to 
disconnect for a second and then immediately reconnect using the new 
settings.  You won't get much of a performance benefit for running Nstreme 
while configured like this, but on a temporary basis, it would allow you to 
see retransmit levels for a user.  Again, I haven't tried this, so it may 
not have the desired affect of letting you see retransmit levels, but it's 
an idea.


Dave

- Original Message - 
From: Paul Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 3:41 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mikrotik Virtual AP


I'm using NStreme on both the AP and client devices. Would these figures not
reflect the same thing in an NStreme environment and if not why not?


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Sovereen
Sent: 03 June 2006 15:49
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Virtual AP

Following up to my own post...

Short of removing the RF interference (relocate CPE, cut down a branch, a
tree, etc), about all you can do is increase the gain of the client's
antenna.  As an alternative to looking at the jitter and packet loss at the
IP layer, these numbers will help you quantify whether or not you are
improving the customer's connection (and as a result, the performance of all
customers on the same AP).

If you take TX Frames and divide into TX Hw Frames, subtract 1, and ignore
the negative sign or multiply by -1 (i.e. ((TX Frames / TX Hw Frames) - 1)
* -1), you will get the percentage of retransmits.  This number should be as
low as possible.  High retransmit rates affect the service and performance
of all customers on an AP.

Dave

989-837-3790 x 151
989-837-3780 fax

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.mercury.net

129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640
- Original Message - 
From: David Sovereen [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Virtual AP



There isn't much you can do; we're not given controls over settings at

that

low layer.

You can quantify the number of retransmits on a per-client basis in

Mikrotik

APs operating in 802.11a/b/g mode (but not Nstreme) by going to

Wireless -

Registration, double-clicking the client, and going to the Statistics tab.

Compare TX Frames with TX Hw Frames.  TX Frames is the number of packets
sent from the upper layer (typically IP or PPPoE, but could be other
protocols) to the RF/wireless ethernet layer.  TX Hw Frames is the number

of

packets sent over the air, including re-transmits.  In a perfect
environment, these numbers will be equal, i.e. 10,000 IP packets = 10,000
RF/wireless ethernet frames.  If a 10 packets needed to be retransmitted,
then the example I'm using would show 10,010 TX Hw Frames.

Retransmissions from the client to the AP can only be seen on the client
side.  If the client is running Mikrotik, you will find the information in
the same place looking at the same TX statistics.  Not all equipment
provides this information.

Dave

989-837-3790 x 151
989-837-3780 fax

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.mercury.net

129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640
- Original Message - 
From: Paul Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this?

2006-06-04 Thread David Sovereen



Many of you seem to be of the belief that the 
proposed bill requires you to keep records of the content of subscribers. 
Simply put, that isNOT THE CASE. While I do not know the specific 
details of the various proposals, I do know that none of them are expecting ISPs 
to keep copies of content accessed.

The proposed bills arerequiring that ISPs 
keep track of what subscriber used what IP address(es). One version of the 
bill wants this data retained for one year; another version for two years. 
For ISPs using RADIUS for accounting or making static IP assignments, this is 
pretty easy to do. I don't know what 
requirements, if any, are being proposed for subscribers placed behind a NAT 
firewall shared by many subscribers.

I understand that WISPA is an organization still in 
its infancy, and they don't currently have the resources to "lobby" 
congress. But there IS an organization speaking to congress on your bahalf 
on this issue: The United States Internet Industry Association.

As a former member of the board of directors, I can 
assure you that this is a small, but vocal organization, and they are 
representing YOUR interests. Data retention requirements have been on 
USIIA's radar for quite some time. On Feburary 17, 2005 (last year) the 
board of directors adopted this policy as USIIA's official position on data 
retention: http://www.usiia.org/legis/dataret.html

If you'd like tosupport an organization that 
does speak to congress and is representing your interests, you might consider 
giving USIIA your financial. For the record, their board receives no 
compensation. The only paid employee is David McClure, their full-time 
President and CEO (and "lobbyist", but he doesn't go by that 
title).

Dave


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Pete Davis 
  
  To: WISPA General List ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 2:34 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent 
  about this?
  If/when the feds require it, I guess the way to do it would be 
  to run Ethereal in fully promiscuous mode on a mirrored port on a switch and 
  streaming it to server over the FBI's T1 to their server. When the Federal 
  government installs their T1 to my NOC, I would be willing to upload it to 
  them over their network resources to their server for them to to keep on file 
  for 2 years to never look at, otherwise, I don't have any way to insure that 
  the data hasn't been tampered with if it stays in my file room. The government 
  requiring me to keep two years records of all network traffic seems 
  unreasonable. If I were a defense attorney defending a client whose evidence 
  against him was stored by some local ISP dinks on their servers for 24 months, 
  I would certainly question the chain of the evidence, and likely get it thrown 
  out.Here is an example of how this could go wrong: If I am an ISP 
  operator (I am actually) and I have a vendetta against a client (I don't, or 
  at least not one I want to discuss here) and I am in charge of keeping network 
  logs of all of that client's traffic, I could easily forge the records to make 
  it look like he had committed a horrific crime, like reproducing the 
  transcript of the commentary of a game without the express written consent of 
  Major League Baseball, and make it look like it came from his IP address. I 
  don't know how that record, 24 months old, and sitting in my tape locker could 
  ever be held as compelling evidence against him, unless there was already an 
  investigation, where these records still probably couldn't make or break a 
  case.I suppose that the thinking is, that if the subscriber is guilty 
  of child porn, and they can prove what site he downloaded from and sent it to, 
  they could go after that web host for hosting the smut. Either way, putting it 
  off to the local ISP to keep records seems far fetched. Pete 
  DavisNoDial.netMac Dearman wrote: 
  You have enough clients that it would bankrupt you to build a server to log
your HTTP  SMTP traffic? I don't think it would be that difficult or
expensive, but agree that it would be a major PITA! I am pretty sure we will
never be faced with this as the majority of us aren't reliable enough to
even set this up nor responsible enough to keep up with it reliably for two
years.

Mac Dearman

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 12:34 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this?

Common sense tells you that the big boys will lobby to force the last mile
provider to log it all, so as to bankrupt the competition.




North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!

-
- Original Message - 
From: "Mac Dearman" [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Virtual AP

2006-06-03 Thread David Sovereen
Hi Paul,

It's an RF problem.  802.11a/b/g and Nstreme all have packet acknowledgement
in the protocol.  Every packet your AP sends needs to be acknowledged by the
client.  When a packet is not acknowledged, the AP retransmits it.  Because
of poor RF conditions (NLOS), RF/wireless ethernet packets are being lost.
When this happens, the AP retransmits the unacknowledged packets
automatically.

When you see packet loss at the IP layer (i.e. ping timeout), your packet
has been lost and retransmitted at the RF/wireless ethernet layer by the AP
many times over again.  Retransmissions take up significant air time because
your AP is waiting until the Ack timeout, typically up to 400usec, for the
Acknowledgement to come back and isn't transmitting anything else during
that time.  It retransmits the packet over and over.  One packet like this
isn't in itself a problem.  But when it happens on a data stream of 20
packets/sec, it is!  Because your AP is trying and waiting and trying and
waiting to get these packets through, other customers are being impacted.

Moving this customer to a Virtual AP will have zero affect.  The same packet
acknowledgement/transmission problem will occur, and all customers,
regardless of SSID will be affected.

Your best move is to drop this customer, or if you really want to keep the
customer and not impact your other customers, move him to another
radio/antenna.  RF packet loss is costly in terms of overall AP capacity.
Keeping customers who have significant RF packet loss can cut total AP
capacity in half or worse, depending on severity.

Regards,

Dave

989-837-3790 x 151
989-837-3780 fax

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.mercury.net

129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640
- Original Message - 
From: Paul Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 9:21 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Mikrotik Virtual AP


Ola,



I currently have a scenario where a dozen clients are connected
to a 5.8GHz AP where one is a NLOS link. The link quality is fine for this
client during normal conditions but when it rains it becomes a little
unstable which the customer is fine with as they have no alternative. The
problem that I have is when the weather is poor it can cause a lot of jitter
to the other clients on the same AP especially when the NLOS link is trying
to be used. I’m wondering if this is an RF or IP issue. If it’s an issue at
the IP layer then I wonder if setting up a Mikrotik box as the AP with a
virtual AP for the NLOS link and a virtual AP for the rest would get round
this problem.



Any thoughts or experiences??



Cheers,



P



Skyline Networks  Consultancy Ltd

Web: HYPERLINK
http://www.skyline-networks.comhttp://www.skyline-networks.com





This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed.  If
you have received this email in error please notify the sender.  Whilst
every endeavour is taken to ensure that emails are free from viruses, no
liability can be accepted for any damage arising from using this email.




-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.1/354 - Release Date: 01/06/2006








 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Virtual AP

2006-06-03 Thread David Sovereen
There isn't much you can do; we're not given controls over settings at that
low layer.

You can quantify the number of retransmits on a per-client basis in Mikrotik
APs operating in 802.11a/b/g mode (but not Nstreme) by going to Wireless -
Registration, double-clicking the client, and going to the Statistics tab.

Compare TX Frames with TX Hw Frames.  TX Frames is the number of packets
sent from the upper layer (typically IP or PPPoE, but could be other
protocols) to the RF/wireless ethernet layer.  TX Hw Frames is the number of
packets sent over the air, including re-transmits.  In a perfect
environment, these numbers will be equal, i.e. 10,000 IP packets = 10,000
RF/wireless ethernet frames.  If a 10 packets needed to be retransmitted,
then the example I'm using would show 10,010 TX Hw Frames.

Retransmissions from the client to the AP can only be seen on the client
side.  If the client is running Mikrotik, you will find the information in
the same place looking at the same TX statistics.  Not all equipment
provides this information.

Dave

989-837-3790 x 151
989-837-3780 fax

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.mercury.net

129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640
- Original Message - 
From: Paul Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 10:11 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mikrotik Virtual AP


Thought as much but was hoping it might have been an issue further up the
stack. Anyone know if the number of retransmits can be adjusted or if there
are any other tweaks to make the impact minimal?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Sovereen
Sent: 03 June 2006 14:46
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Virtual AP

Hi Paul,

It's an RF problem.  802.11a/b/g and Nstreme all have packet acknowledgement
in the protocol.  Every packet your AP sends needs to be acknowledged by the
client.  When a packet is not acknowledged, the AP retransmits it.  Because
of poor RF conditions (NLOS), RF/wireless ethernet packets are being lost.
When this happens, the AP retransmits the unacknowledged packets
automatically.

When you see packet loss at the IP layer (i.e. ping timeout), your packet
has been lost and retransmitted at the RF/wireless ethernet layer by the AP
many times over again.  Retransmissions take up significant air time because
your AP is waiting until the Ack timeout, typically up to 400usec, for the
Acknowledgement to come back and isn't transmitting anything else during
that time.  It retransmits the packet over and over.  One packet like this
isn't in itself a problem.  But when it happens on a data stream of 20
packets/sec, it is!  Because your AP is trying and waiting and trying and
waiting to get these packets through, other customers are being impacted.

Moving this customer to a Virtual AP will have zero affect.  The same packet
acknowledgement/transmission problem will occur, and all customers,
regardless of SSID will be affected.

Your best move is to drop this customer, or if you really want to keep the
customer and not impact your other customers, move him to another
radio/antenna.  RF packet loss is costly in terms of overall AP capacity.
Keeping customers who have significant RF packet loss can cut total AP
capacity in half or worse, depending on severity.

Regards,

Dave

989-837-3790 x 151
989-837-3780 fax

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.mercury.net

129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640
- Original Message - 
From: Paul Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 9:21 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Mikrotik Virtual AP


Ola,



I currently have a scenario where a dozen clients are connected
to a 5.8GHz AP where one is a NLOS link. The link quality is fine for this
client during normal conditions but when it rains it becomes a little
unstable which the customer is fine with as they have no alternative. The
problem that I have is when the weather is poor it can cause a lot of jitter
to the other clients on the same AP especially when the NLOS link is trying
to be used. I’m wondering if this is an RF or IP issue. If it’s an issue at
the IP layer then I wonder if setting up a Mikrotik box as the AP with a
virtual AP for the NLOS link and a virtual AP for the rest would get round
this problem.



Any thoughts or experiences??



Cheers,



P



Skyline Networks  Consultancy Ltd

Web: HYPERLINK
http://www.skyline-networks.comhttp://www.skyline-networks.com





This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed.  If
you have received this email in error please notify the sender.  Whilst
every endeavour is taken to ensure that emails are free from viruses, no
liability can be accepted for any damage arising from using this email.




-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus

Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Virtual AP

2006-06-03 Thread David Sovereen
Following up to my own post...

Short of removing the RF interference (relocate CPE, cut down a branch, a
tree, etc), about all you can do is increase the gain of the client's
antenna.  As an alternative to looking at the jitter and packet loss at the
IP layer, these numbers will help you quantify whether or not you are
improving the customer's connection (and as a result, the performance of all
customers on the same AP).

If you take TX Frames and divide into TX Hw Frames, subtract 1, and ignore
the negative sign or multiply by -1 (i.e. ((TX Frames / TX Hw Frames) - 1)
* -1), you will get the percentage of retransmits.  This number should be as
low as possible.  High retransmit rates affect the service and performance
of all customers on an AP.

Dave

989-837-3790 x 151
989-837-3780 fax

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.mercury.net

129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640
- Original Message - 
From: David Sovereen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Virtual AP


 There isn't much you can do; we're not given controls over settings at
that
 low layer.

 You can quantify the number of retransmits on a per-client basis in
Mikrotik
 APs operating in 802.11a/b/g mode (but not Nstreme) by going to
Wireless -
 Registration, double-clicking the client, and going to the Statistics tab.

 Compare TX Frames with TX Hw Frames.  TX Frames is the number of packets
 sent from the upper layer (typically IP or PPPoE, but could be other
 protocols) to the RF/wireless ethernet layer.  TX Hw Frames is the number
of
 packets sent over the air, including re-transmits.  In a perfect
 environment, these numbers will be equal, i.e. 10,000 IP packets = 10,000
 RF/wireless ethernet frames.  If a 10 packets needed to be retransmitted,
 then the example I'm using would show 10,010 TX Hw Frames.

 Retransmissions from the client to the AP can only be seen on the client
 side.  If the client is running Mikrotik, you will find the information in
 the same place looking at the same TX statistics.  Not all equipment
 provides this information.

 Dave

 989-837-3790 x 151
 989-837-3780 fax

 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 www.mercury.net

 129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640
 - Original Message - 
 From: Paul Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 10:11 AM
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mikrotik Virtual AP


 Thought as much but was hoping it might have been an issue further up the
 stack. Anyone know if the number of retransmits can be adjusted or if
there
 are any other tweaks to make the impact minimal?

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of David Sovereen
 Sent: 03 June 2006 14:46
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Virtual AP

 Hi Paul,

 It's an RF problem.  802.11a/b/g and Nstreme all have packet
acknowledgement
 in the protocol.  Every packet your AP sends needs to be acknowledged by
the
 client.  When a packet is not acknowledged, the AP retransmits it.
Because
 of poor RF conditions (NLOS), RF/wireless ethernet packets are being lost.
 When this happens, the AP retransmits the unacknowledged packets
 automatically.

 When you see packet loss at the IP layer (i.e. ping timeout), your packet
 has been lost and retransmitted at the RF/wireless ethernet layer by the
AP
 many times over again.  Retransmissions take up significant air time
because
 your AP is waiting until the Ack timeout, typically up to 400usec, for the
 Acknowledgement to come back and isn't transmitting anything else during
 that time.  It retransmits the packet over and over.  One packet like this
 isn't in itself a problem.  But when it happens on a data stream of 20
 packets/sec, it is!  Because your AP is trying and waiting and trying and

 waiting to get these packets through, other customers are being impacted.

 Moving this customer to a Virtual AP will have zero affect.  The same
packet
 acknowledgement/transmission problem will occur, and all customers,
 regardless of SSID will be affected.

 Your best move is to drop this customer, or if you really want to keep the
 customer and not impact your other customers, move him to another
 radio/antenna.  RF packet loss is costly in terms of overall AP capacity.
 Keeping customers who have significant RF packet loss can cut total AP
 capacity in half or worse, depending on severity.

 Regards,

 Dave

 989-837-3790 x 151
 989-837-3780 fax

 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 www.mercury.net

 129 Ashman St, Midland, MI  48640
 - Original Message - 
 From: Paul Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 9:21 AM
 Subject: [WISPA] Mikrotik Virtual AP


 Ola,



 I currently have a scenario where a dozen clients are
connected
 to a 5.8GHz AP where one is a NLOS link. The link quality is fine for this
 client during normal conditions but when it rains