Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti CPEs - SuperAG

2009-09-04 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
I run the next to latest full release, which is like build 2880  or 1.3.23b 
of version 3.   I still have a few v2 cpe left not upgraded, somewhere in 
the half dozen range, probably.

I have a few running the  very latest release, because of it's higher 
throughput, but it has bugs and have elected not to use it widely until the 
features are fully implemented and some bugs squashed.

a single point to point 11b throgh a bullet will hit 650KB, but compressible 
data through a staros cpe will easily exceed 1400.




- Original Message - 
From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti CPEs - SuperAG


I havent seen that but I've only got a few StarOS CPE units out there.
 What version are you running? I'm still on V2 for Customer APs. Just
 started upgrading to V3 for Backhauls. -RickG

 On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:35 PM, readerrea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:
 I, too, run Star-OS, and the bullet 2's are approximately 50% of the
 throughput of a staros based cpe when in 11b mode.

 Star-OS has other helpful things like managed mode, and the signal level
 settings. I use bullet 2's only when I absolutely have to, due to this.

 Star-OS ap to cpe will endure high levels of interference and multipath,
 without packet loss, but not a bullet.



 On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 20:32:28 -0400, RickG wrote
 Mark,

 It appears that is correct. I also run StarOS AP's. Interesting
 though, I have not seen any performance differences between the units
 with ff  comp and those that dont support it. I wonder if its just
 something you cant view?

 -RickG

 On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Mark Nashmarkl...@uwol.net wrote:
  According to Ubiquiti, these DO support ff  comp:
 
  Nanostation 5
  Nanostation Loco 5
  Bullet 2 HP
  Picostation 2 HP
  All powerstations
 
  All others do not, including:
 
  Nanostation 2
  Nanostation Loco 2
  Bullet 2 (non-HP...WTF???)
  Bullet5
 
  Mark Nash
  UnwiredWest
  78 Centennial Loop
  Suite E
  Eugene, OR 97401
  541-998-
  541-998-5599 fax
  http://www.unwiredwest.com
  - Original Message -
  From: ralph ralphli...@bsrg.org
  To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 11:36 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti CPEs - SuperAG
 
 
 I know that with DDWRT, you have to pay for the license and you get a 
 key.
  Not sure about OpenWRT.
  I don't recall any current UBNT I have used that did not support ff 
  and
  comp. I have used most, except for the newest that just came out.
 
  Ralph
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
  On
  Behalf Of Mark Nash
  Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 12:43 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: [WISPA] Ubiquiti CPEs - SuperAG
 
  It appears that only SOME of the Ubiquiti products enable compression 
  
  fast
  frames,  some don't. Is this accurate? Any success stories using the
  WRT
  firmware on these products?
 
  It seems that the hardware is capable, just hasn't been enabled in 
  the
  firmware unless you purchase the higher end, more expensive products.
 
  This seems to be the ONLY thing keeping me from using these products 
  in a
  big way as opposed to what I use now, StarOS.
 
  Mark Nash
  UnwiredWest
  78 Centennial Loop
  Suite E
  Eugene, OR 97401
  541-998-
  541-998-5599 fax
  http://www.unwiredwest.com
 
 
  -
 ---
  
  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
  -
 ---
  
 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
  -
 ---
  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
  -
 ---
 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
 
  --
 --
  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
  --
 --
 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 

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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 

Re: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance

2007-05-01 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance

I went to email him, but his website says he will not respond to emails from
outside his district.

his website has no mention of his letter to the FCC.

Is there anyone in his district on-list who can email or call him?
People from outside his district are obviously going to be far back on the
list of things to take time to deal with.   I won't call unless there's
nobody in his district.


I did a lot of searching for additional information about his request, but I
found nothing.   I did find he has a lot of interest in internet /
telecommunications, though I see he and I are on the opposite sides of a lot
of things.

His district is the upper peninsula of Michigan.

Anyone?





 I'd like to hear the FCC response to Rep. Bart Stupak's request to waive
 the CALEA regulations for small broadband providers, as described in the
 following link.

 http://www.wispa.org/?p=21

-- 
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 Hotspot Setup

2007-05-01 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
People have been saying this for quite some time.

There's a lot of people who have been deploying star-os and mt based gear
with the assumption that at a future date would come some minor regulatory
changes that would let them certify stuff already out.

The new modular transmitter rules may provide this means, if someone can
get some clarity about the legalese in the published rule changes


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Hotspot Setup


 Can the Certification Nazis give it a rest for a couple of months?
 There will be plenty of StarOS and MT certified systems by then and we
 can send these stupid threads into /dev/null oblivion.

 Sheesh.

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com


 Chadd Thompson wrote:
  You want to help the guy or poke him with a stick?
 
  :O)
 
  Chadd
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
  Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 8:22 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Hotspot Setup
 
  Ty,
 
  I assume you are planning to use certified gear for this.
 
  Regards,
  Dawn DiPietro
 
 
  Ty Carter Lightwave Communications wrote:
 
  Anyone out there willing to throw a helping hand to me in setting up a
  MT hotspot  I have tried several times; and just can not get it to
  function as I think it is prescribed to function... i.e. can't get it
to
  work... doa.
 
  I will be glad to call whomever for assistancePlease shoot me a
  contact number off-list and I will be glad to discuss this in detail.
 
 
  --
  Regards,
 
  Ty Carter, President
  Strategic Network Consultants, Inc.
  524 East 9th Street
  Washington, NC  27889
  252-946-0351 .::. Office
  252-402-5296 .::. Cell
  252-946-8763 .::. Fax
  E-Mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  Visit us on the web at:  http://www.strategicconsultants.net
 
 
 
 
  --
  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] CALEA Compliance

2007-05-01 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
Prior to CALEA, my plan for helping law enforcement consisted of the
following... Introducing them to my upstream (they'd already know them
anyway, because my netblocks belong to them) and having them use my
provider's nice, secure NOC for tapping into my upstream traffic via a
managed switch and mirroring.

I have no place to put a mediation box, no place to put any kind of physical
tap.   I have no physical point this can be done, WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF
MY NETWORK.   Physically, it has to be located at someone else's facility.
This is not compliant.

And one says why are you stressing?  Ok, how many of you have dealt with
the IRS?  How about electrical codes?   Building codes?   OSHA?  Saying that
the feds just want the data is just like saying the IRS just wants some
money.   Wrong.  They want absolute compliance, to the letter.   When we
had to dispose of solvents and cleaners, we went many rounds with the DEQ
for Oregon.  There was no accomplish this goal, it was obey the letter,
period.   Great solutions were not allowed, because they didn't fit the
absolute letter.  Welcome to the world of regulatory hell.

Conversations with people in DC are one thing.  They will present as a nice
of face as possible to disarm you.  The IRS people are pleasant... at
first.. too.So was the DEQ.   Oh, we don't want to fine you, just get
you into compliance, but the moment we talked to them, we had to
immediately do what they demanded, or face fines.  For instance, we had to
clean some parts in something like carb cleaner.  It is washed off with high
pressure hot water.   That means that it, and the water you wash it off
with... is hazardous waste.   So, limits on the disposal of hazardous
waste?   Well, we had a gallon limit.  So, we said, we buy 20 gallons a
year, does this mean we generate 20 gallons of waste?   The answer was
no.   Every gallon of water used to rinse it off became another measured
gallon.   They told us that the preferred method of disposal was to
evaporate the carb cleaner.  So, we said great... we'll just rinse it off
with water and evaporate the water and cleaner.  Nope.  if we rinse it with
water, then that water counts toward hazardous waste gallons.   Stupid, eh?
No matter how much water we used, we were still evaporating 20 gallons of
this solvent.  But the evaporated water was 'hazardous waste and if we
mixed too much water in this, we went over the gallon limit.

Read the document...  They will read your filings, and then they will start
on a process of bringing you into compliance.   Tapping at your gateway?
That's fine.  That's good faith to start.   Then you will have to
demonstrate contined progress toward compliance.   Dont' have 24 hour
response?  That's fine.  You will only need to say WHEN you'll have it.
You WILL eventually have to capture it at the client end, or at the AP if
you're wireless.   You WILL provide a date when this will happen.

I hate to say it, but it sounds like some very gullible people talked to the
feds.   They're not the ones who will be reading the forms and assessing
fines.  They are there to put a nice face on things.   But compliance, to
the letter?   That's what the name of the game is.  Always will be.   Always
has been.

What has to be gotten across, is that some technologies do not work this
way.   They will have to make a definitive statement ( the calea faq is
woefully out of date - www.askcalea.net , with contradictory information
published later) .   I quote:  The primary goal of the Order is to ensure
that Law Enforcement Agencies have all of the resources that CALEA
authorizes with regard to facilities-based broadband Internet access
providers (ISP) and interconnected voice over Internet protocol (VOIP)
providers. 

Not to do what you can but to get EVERYTHING they they are authorized to
get.
That's my opinion of how the future is going to play out, unless something
changes between now and then.   They make the statement that we don't
intend to alter the way networks work.   But when you read the way
enforcement works.. You will.

Just witness how many people are talking about fundamentally altering
network operations to be compliant now.

But more importantly... from this day forward, you will not be able to
start, or deploy a wireless or any other kind of internet providing network
that doesn't have ALL aspects of  CALEA compatibility built in.   That
pretty much rules out the vast majority of present equipment and methods of
deployment.


- Original Message - 
From: Ross Cornett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance


 I still would like to know the amount of incident that this CALEA will
cause
 for all of its costs to our industry.  Did anyone ask the FBI, why they
 cannot have several machines and deliver them as needed pre-configured
then
 we can install them when they are needed.  It is highly unreasonable for
the
 FBI to ask 

[WISPA] Ok, here's my CALEA statement, and farewell.

2007-05-01 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
I hereby declare that I am NOT a facilities based provider, since I do not
have any physical point on my network that can be tapped, mirrored, probed,
or otherwise possible to intercept.   I have no equivalent to a switched
network.

There you have it.

We're putting my network your mouth is, folks.   Continually, there is the
statement that nobody will be requied to change their network.   We'll see
how true to their word the government is.  Trusting government's word is THE
definition of ultimate stupidity, but I have no other choice.  My prediction
is that those statements are only words, and it will ultimately be proven a
total lie.

Now, I HAVE a suggestion for LE for how to get information, and I'll be
happy to help them do it, but my particular network simply has NO possible
mechanism.  I have spent weeks trying to figure some possible way to meet
the definition of compliance but it isn't possible.

Of course, this is of no help to the poor people who now face serious
financial issues.   I regret that WISPA refuses to officially go to bat for
them.

For that matter,  I regret wasting WISPA's time.  You fine folks are now
reading my last post to anything related to WISPA and on any WISPA list.
When WISPA turned it's back on the small people, and started insisting that
defending right and good was no longer allowed by a mature industry,
defining mature as being absolutely blind to issues of right / wrong or
even recognition that government is overreaching, it lost my support.   When
it became downright hostile to the interests of us as people,  it set up
itself as something I am hostile to as a matter of principle.  As one of our
forefathers said, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.  Not just
during speeches, not just as talking points during elections, but in EVERY
aspect of our lives, be it religious, business, political, social, and
educational.   When hostility to the notion of defending ourselves against
overreaching government is displayed for purposes of expedience or
convenience or ingratiating ourselves with those in power, then I cannot
in good conscience support or be associated.  Sorry.  If principle isn't
worth defending and upholding, it's not principle, just public stances.
I will never regret upholding principle, but I will certainly regret NOT.

I have very much enjoyed some of the conversations over the many moons, the
awesome character and generosity post Katrina displayed by so many, and some
of the great people I've conversed with and some of the most fascinating and
thought provoking discussions over the many months I have been here.

A few years ago, I would have probably kept my mouth shut and just gone
along.   But no more.  I have had more than enough.  I decided that I will
live, speak, and associate according to my best conscience.  It applies even
to my business and how I treat my customers.   My first taste of this was
when I turned down a job because it required me to violate my conscience.
I was unemployed and utterly broke.  Some thought me insane, but just days
later I had a real job, with pay dramatically exceeding the one I turned
down...and I got to live and work the highest ideals.

Seriously, folks...  It's been a fascinating ride, and I have no hostility
to any of you, though we disagree or agree or dont' even understand each
other.

I'll be easy enough to find elsewhere...  Just look for the fanaticly
devoted wireless and freedom advocate, and I'll be there.

Later, folks.


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.

2007-04-30 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
You a HAM operator, Jack?



- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.


 Mark,

 Certification verifies that the signals conducted into the power line
 and the signals radiated into the air from a wireless system are clean
 and that they do not exceed the power limits. Minimizing self
 interference is primarily a function of good network design techniques.
 This is outside the scope of FCC certification because, even with
 certified equipment, it is easy for an uninformed person to deploy a
 network that interferes with itself and with other networks.

 To motivate manufacturers, let them know you want to buy only certified
 systems from them.

 jack


 Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:05 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.
 
 
  See comment inline, near end of post.
  Wrong. Certification DOES test for out of band emissions; it also tests
  for out of channel emissions. It does not test for receiver selectivity
  because that is not a characteristic that will mess up the band. Part
15
  certification deals primarily with dirty transmitted signals, not poor
  receivers.
  jack
 
 
  Well, I should have been more clear.   Yes, there are tests and certain
  limits.   Just being good enough isn't what I was wanting.  I'd like
the
  best stuff, because doing so means you minimize self interference, etc.
 
 
 
  Any suggestions to motivate manufacturers?
 

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


 -- 
 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] was School WiFi , about technical values.

2007-04-30 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
how does this work for the hundreds of guys who use stuff they created,
becuase the manufacturers are miles behind in features, performance, and
flexibility?




- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.


 Felix,

 I think motivating manufacturers is a simple as:

 1. Asking them WHAT FCC certified systems they offer?

 2. If the answer is none, ask them WHEN they expect to be offering
 certified systems?

 3. If the answer is they have no plans then ask them WHY NOT and
 inform them that too much time and money have gone into building your
 WISP to risk losing it by being fined or shut down by the FCC. Ask them
 to advise you as soon as they have FCC certified systems available.

 jack


 Felix A. Lopez wrote:
  Jack - I would be interested in motivating the
  manufacturers. I work for a large manufacturer but
  plan to go to a smaller company becase I like working
  in focused delta team environment. But I can see how
  working with manufacturers can be helpful.  Can you
  provide additional thoughts.
 
  Marlon - any suggestions on your part?
 
  Felix
  --- Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  See comment inline, near end of post.
 
 
  Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
  - Original Message - 
  From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 5:05 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?
 
 
  Dawn DiPietro wrote:
  Mike,
 
  If you think you are under the radar you are
  sorely mistaken. You
  admitted on a public list that gear you use is
  not certified.
  Regards,
  Dawn DiPietro
  Yeah, but your over the limit! :)
 
  Heck why go after a 3000 little guys when you can
  go after one big guy.
  They've been selling unlicensed amplifiers and
  uncertified systems for
  as long as I can remember. Heck, talk about
  posting a message on this
  list, what about having a full blown catalog
  online advertizing US sales
  with prices next to them?
 
  I believe they should have spent the 3 or 4 g's
  to get the systems they
  sell certified before they sold them.
 
  They make millions easily selling uncertified
  gear and it's not a secret.
  Ohh, I feel another rant coming on.. .George, you
  better take a chill pill
  :)
 
  While this is a peripheral issue with
  certification,  I have made
  suggestions to the FCC about certification of
  individual components.I
  kinda doubt it's going to happen.  At least not
  soon,  regulators are
  notorious for not liking change, since it makes
  things less tidy for them.
  I buy computer components... motherboad,
  processors, video cards, and so
  on...  And tires,  and car parts, and actually
  quite a few other things that
  have technical performance reviews by people who
  have tested things.
  I WISH that manufacturers could certify
  components, because then we'd have
  published real-wolrd performance graphs and charts
  to use for comparison
  when we buy things.   Just certified really
  isn't good enough in my
  view.   I recall that a good number of years ago,
  there was a hack for a
  linksys AP that turned up the power.  Someone used
  an SA on it and found
  that when you did it, the output became incredibly
  dirty.
  Certified or not, I would like to know that what I
  buy is clean rf-wise.
  Low OOB emissions.   Minimal out of channel
  emissions,  selective recievers
  that reject adjacent channel noise.  Really
  comparable specs for dealing
  with noise and S/N ratios, etc.
 
  I really dislike not knowing those things about
  what I buy.   And, due to
  the way certification works, certification has
  almost no meaning when it
  comes to those important RF characteristics.
  Early on in my investigating
  the wireless business, lots of people were testing
  new products and
  publishing the results.  I dont' see ANY of that
  going on anymore.
 
  Wrong. Certification DOES test for out of band
  emissions; it also tests
  for out of channel emissions. It does not test for
  receiver selectivity
  because that is not a characteristic that will mess
  up the band. Part 15
  certification deals primarily with dirty transmitted
  signals, not poor
  receivers.
  jack
 
  Any suggestions to motivate manufacturers?
 
  -- 
  Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President,
  Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
  FCC License # PG-12-25133
  Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
  Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying
  License-Free Wireless WANs
  True Vendor-Neutral Wireless
  Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
  FCC Part 15 Certification Assistance for Wireless
  Service Providers
  Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220
  www.ask-wi.com
 
 
  -- 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives

Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.

2007-04-30 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
Then you know and understand the  value of selectivity and what clean
transmitters are.   There's good enough to get certified, and then there's
good and better and excellent and I'd like to see us have the
information and be able to lean on the manufacturers to clean up their acts.
There is a wide gulf between certifieable and very good.An aweful
lot of manufacturers are playing the power race, which I don't like, I
wish they were trying to complete on all the RF qualities of their
equipment.



- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.


 I am a ham and I have been for 48 years. I've also held an FCC
 Commercial License for 28 years. Without my ham experience, I doubt that
 I would have been able to transition into the license-free wireless
 industry in 1993 - which was before any WISPs even existed. My years of
 ham experience made the transition relatively easy. I recommend that all
 WISP operators consider getting their ham licenses which, BTW no longer
 require any Morse Code tests.

 jack


 Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
  You a HAM operator, Jack?
 
 
 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:52 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.
 
 
  Mark,
 
  Certification verifies that the signals conducted into the power line
  and the signals radiated into the air from a wireless system are clean
  and that they do not exceed the power limits. Minimizing self
  interference is primarily a function of good network design techniques.
  This is outside the scope of FCC certification because, even with
  certified equipment, it is easy for an uninformed person to deploy a
  network that interferes with itself and with other networks.
 
  To motivate manufacturers, let them know you want to buy only certified
  systems from them.
 
  jack
 
 
  Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:05 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.
 
 
  See comment inline, near end of post.
  Wrong. Certification DOES test for out of band emissions; it also
tests
  for out of channel emissions. It does not test for receiver
selectivity
  because that is not a characteristic that will mess up the band. Part
  15
  certification deals primarily with dirty transmitted signals, not
poor
  receivers.
  jack
 
  Well, I should have been more clear.   Yes, there are tests and
certain
  limits.   Just being good enough isn't what I was wanting.  I'd like
  the
  best stuff, because doing so means you minimize self interference,
etc.
 
 
 -- 
 Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
 FCC License # PG-12-25133
 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
 True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
 FCC Part 15 Certification Assistance for Wireless Service Providers
 Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com


 -- 
 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] was School WiFi , about technical values.

2007-04-30 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

I guess what I'm saying, is that you'll find a lot of stuff out there that's
not certified because certified is for the most part lacking most of the
what's required to build a fully functional network.

I've noticed some people are working on certifying MT and Star-OS and other
stuff built out of commodity equipment, and that's great...  But the writers
of software aren't really responsible for the RF part, and the people that
build the RF part have never been interested in certification, because there
at least historically, been no means of doing so.

The recent rule changes might lead to a way of doing this.




- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.


 Mark,

 Please state your question more clearly.

 jack


 Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
  how does this work for the hundreds of guys who use stuff they created,
  becuase the manufacturers are miles behind in features, performance,
and
  flexibility?
 
 
 
 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 11:09 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.
 
 
  Felix,
 
  I think motivating manufacturers is a simple as:
 
  1. Asking them WHAT FCC certified systems they offer?
 
  2. If the answer is none, ask them WHEN they expect to be offering
  certified systems?
 
  3. If the answer is they have no plans then ask them WHY NOT and
  inform them that too much time and money have gone into building your
  WISP to risk losing it by being fined or shut down by the FCC. Ask them
  to advise you as soon as they have FCC certified systems available.
 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.

2007-04-30 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.


 Mark,

 I'm going to reply but this will be my last reply on this subject. I
 don't want to exceed my 5 posts per day limit any more than necessary.
:)

 Yes, I understand about receiver selectivity. I've also taught over 2000
 WISP personnel about it since 2001. I also wrote a (vendor-neutral) book
 about proper broadband wireless network design and deployment. The book
 has a heavy emphasis on explaining how wireless works. One entire
 chapter is devoted to evaluating and selecting wireless equipment.

 I do think it's beyond the role and beyond the budget of the FCC to be
 able to certify equipment as good enough, better, best, etc.

Agreed.


 It's the job of the intelligent WISP owner/operator to learn how
 wireless propagation works and how wireless equipment works. Then the
 WISP operator can make their own determination about what equipment is
 best to achieve their particular wireless goals in their particular
 wireless environment.

We can only do this if we can find a way to get the makers to provide us
with more information than they do at present.

We have power and sensitivity specs, and that's about it.  There's a whole
lot more to it than that, though.

Sadly,  without us demanding it, we'll never get it, and too few people have
any idea what to ask for, much less evaluate what it means.




 Have a good night,
 jack


 Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
  Then you know and understand the  value of selectivity and what clean
  transmitters are.   There's good enough to get certified, and then
there's
  good and better and excellent and I'd like to see us have the
  information and be able to lean on the manufacturers to clean up their
acts.
  There is a wide gulf between certifieable and very good.An
aweful
  lot of manufacturers are playing the power race, which I don't like, I
  wish they were trying to complete on all the RF qualities of their
  equipment.
 
 
 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 11:14 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.
 
 
  I am a ham and I have been for 48 years. I've also held an FCC
  Commercial License for 28 years. Without my ham experience, I doubt
that
  I would have been able to transition into the license-free wireless
  industry in 1993 - which was before any WISPs even existed. My years of
  ham experience made the transition relatively easy. I recommend that
all
  WISP operators consider getting their ham licenses which, BTW no longer
  require any Morse Code tests.
 
  jack
 
 
  Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
  You a HAM operator, Jack?
 
 
 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:52 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.
 
 
  Mark,
 
  Certification verifies that the signals conducted into the power line
  and the signals radiated into the air from a wireless system are
clean
  and that they do not exceed the power limits. Minimizing self
  interference is primarily a function of good network design
techniques.
  This is outside the scope of FCC certification because, even with
  certified equipment, it is easy for an uninformed person to deploy a
  network that interferes with itself and with other networks.
 
  To motivate manufacturers, let them know you want to buy only
certified
  systems from them.
 
  jack
 
 
  Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:05 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.
 
 
  See comment inline, near end of post.
  Wrong. Certification DOES test for out of band emissions; it also
  tests
  for out of channel emissions. It does not test for receiver
  selectivity
  because that is not a characteristic that will mess up the band.
Part
  15
  certification deals primarily with dirty transmitted signals, not
  poor
  receivers.
  jack
 
  Well, I should have been more clear.   Yes, there are tests and
  certain
  limits.   Just being good enough isn't what I was wanting.  I'd
like
  the
  best stuff, because doing so means you minimize self interference,
  etc.


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

Re: Regulators: Fickle or Not WAS: RE: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.

2007-04-30 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Rick Herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 12:20 PM
Subject: Regulators: Fickle or Not WAS: RE: [WISPA] was School WiFi ,about
technical values.


 Mark-

 Which is it?

 Quote  1:

 Shaky is the term I used, because this classification isn't law, just FCC
 opinion.   That's obviously subject to whatever breeze blows through DC.
 Now that there is no longer consistency in all matters,  the defense
against

 Quote 2:

 kinda doubt it's going to happen.  At least not soon,  regulators are
 notorious for not liking change, since it makes things less tidy for them.

Rick, we're talking about apples and oranges here.   Quote 1 is opinion.
It is the FCC's opinion that we're subject to CALEA.   At one time, they had
the opposite opinion.   Their opinion is all that keeps us from being fully
regulated and untaxed like the phone companies are.   Now that they have
inconsistency in that classification,  pressure to change others is much
more effective.

Quote 2 is about published and established rules.   They don't like changing
them... they resist that, because it's untidy.Every rule change has
unintended consequences, and government never likes unknowns.




 Rick


 -- 
 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: Regulators: Fickle or Not WAS: RE: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.

2007-04-30 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
Well, exactly what I said.   I don't know how to restate it, and don't
particularly wish to argue it.. .It's just that the people of the FCC, ergo
the things it decides by opinion change often, often with just
administration changes or elections, or sometimes just pressure by other
agencies.   This is characteristically indistinguishable from the EPA, OSHA,
FBI, BATF, and whatever other alphabet soup of regulatory agencies whose
opinion stances change with the winds of politics.

On hte other hand, changing printed rules and regulations requires a lot of
work and time and effort, not something political types tend to undertake
very often.   Adding new, when it's expedient to get some press, is far more
common than revisiting the old and obsolete and starting over to improve and
update.

Or, in other words... Nothing really, other than just observed human nature
in action.



- Original Message - 
From: Rick Herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 1:17 PM
Subject: RE: Regulators: Fickle or Not WAS: RE: [WISPA] was School WiFi
,about technical values.


 Mark-

 No, I am just asking about your true opinion of the regulators - the FCC -
 which is the subject of both of your statements. Or are you somehow
 referring to two different sets of rule-setting fruits?

 In the first, you suggest that they have ever-changing and obviously
 subject to whatever breeze blows through DC.

 In the second, you seem to think they are rigid in their ways, that They
 don't like changing
 them... they resist that, because it's untidy.


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
 Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 3:07 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: Regulators: Fickle or Not WAS: RE: [WISPA] was School WiFi ,
 about technical values.


 - Original Message - 
 From: Rick Herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 12:20 PM
 Subject: Regulators: Fickle or Not WAS: RE: [WISPA] was School WiFi ,about
 technical values.


  Mark-
 
  Which is it?
 
  Quote  1:
 
  Shaky is the term I used, because this classification isn't law, just
FCC
  opinion.   That's obviously subject to whatever breeze blows through DC.
  Now that there is no longer consistency in all matters,  the defense
 against
 
  Quote 2:
 
  kinda doubt it's going to happen.  At least not soon,  regulators are
  notorious for not liking change, since it makes things less tidy for
them.

 Rick, we're talking about apples and oranges here.   Quote 1 is opinion.
 It is the FCC's opinion that we're subject to CALEA.   At one time, they
had
 the opposite opinion.   Their opinion is all that keeps us from being
fully
 regulated and untaxed like the phone companies are.   Now that they have
 inconsistency in that classification,  pressure to change others is much
 more effective.

 Quote 2 is about published and established rules.   They don't like
changing
 them... they resist that, because it's untidy.Every rule change has
 unintended consequences, and government never likes unknowns.



 
  Rick
 
 
  -- 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: Regulators: Fickle or Not WAS: RE: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.

2007-04-30 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
Ok... well... example.  part 15 of the FCC rules.   This is written rules.
They don't change without a bunch of public notices, meetings, NPRM's, etc.

The FCC can change it's mind about... say, whether we are subject to USF
fees.   This isn't codified as rules.  They simply announce the change.
Rules are harder to change than the FCC's opinion about something.   You
might even get favorable opinions from the FCC on a rules change, but it
still doesn't happen.

I really don't think anything different about the FCC than I do the whole of
the federal government in general...  It overreaches, it has exceeded its
boundaries, it is highly disconnected from everyday life, and far too
influnced by highly funded lobbyists.

Aside from that, I dunno what's mysterious here.




- Original Message - 
From: Rick Herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 3:21 PM
Subject: RE: Regulators: Fickle or Not WAS: RE: [WISPA] was School WiFi
,about technical values.


 Well, I still can't follow you. Of course you don't particularly wish to
 argue it; you can't seem to answer my question about your true feelings
 regarding the FCC, and I guess now to include all regulatory agencies.

 The things they decide on opinion are not written down? And the things
 they write down are not opinion?

 Confused,

 Rick

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
 Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 4:54 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: Regulators: Fickle or Not WAS: RE: [WISPA] was School WiFi ,
 about technical values.

 Well, exactly what I said.   I don't know how to restate it, and don't
 particularly wish to argue it.. .It's just that the people of the FCC,
ergo
 the things it decides by opinion change often, often with just
 administration changes or elections, or sometimes just pressure by other
 agencies.   This is characteristically indistinguishable from the EPA,
OSHA,
 FBI, BATF, and whatever other alphabet soup of regulatory agencies whose
 opinion stances change with the winds of politics.

 On hte other hand, changing printed rules and regulations requires a lot
of
 work and time and effort, not something political types tend to undertake
 very often.   Adding new, when it's expedient to get some press, is far
more
 common than revisiting the old and obsolete and starting over to improve
and
 update.

 Or, in other words... Nothing really, other than just observed human
nature
 in action.



 - Original Message - 
 From: Rick Herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 1:17 PM
 Subject: RE: Regulators: Fickle or Not WAS: RE: [WISPA] was School WiFi
 ,about technical values.


  Mark-
 
  No, I am just asking about your true opinion of the regulators - the
FCC -
  which is the subject of both of your statements. Or are you somehow
  referring to two different sets of rule-setting fruits?
 
  In the first, you suggest that they have ever-changing and obviously
  subject to whatever breeze blows through DC.
 
  In the second, you seem to think they are rigid in their ways, that
They
  don't like changing
  them... they resist that, because it's untidy.
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
  Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 3:07 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: Regulators: Fickle or Not WAS: RE: [WISPA] was School WiFi
,
  about technical values.
 
 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Rick Herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 12:20 PM
  Subject: Regulators: Fickle or Not WAS: RE: [WISPA] was School WiFi
,about
  technical values.
 
 
   Mark-
  
   Which is it?
  
   Quote  1:
  
   Shaky is the term I used, because this classification isn't law, just
 FCC
   opinion.   That's obviously subject to whatever breeze blows through
DC.
   Now that there is no longer consistency in all matters,  the defense
  against
  
   Quote 2:
  
   kinda doubt it's going to happen.  At least not soon,  regulators are
   notorious for not liking change, since it makes things less tidy for
 them.
 
  Rick, we're talking about apples and oranges here.   Quote 1 is
opinion.
  It is the FCC's opinion that we're subject to CALEA.   At one time, they
 had
  the opposite opinion.   Their opinion is all that keeps us from being
 fully
  regulated and untaxed like the phone companies are.   Now that they have
  inconsistency in that classification,  pressure to change others is much
  more effective.
 
  Quote 2 is about published and established rules.   They don't like
 changing
  them... they resist that, because it's untidy.Every rule change has
  unintended consequences, and government never likes unknowns.
 
 
 
  
   Rick
  
  
   -- 
   WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
  
   Subscribe

Re: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance

2007-04-30 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

John, the reason I don't buy it, is as has been said...we're days from the
deadline, and we have nothing.

And, further, we don't know what's being worked on.   There's a whole LOT of
issues.   There's extraction.  There's picking out what's required.
There's  storage, there's VPN to the LEA,  the list just goes on and on and
on.   Nobody can build a single device or program that can be applied to
even the majority of networks.   Not even a single point passthrough device
that caches everyting (think solera) is going to work, if we have mutliple
gateways in physically diverse locations.No solution is going to be
universal.   We all have such diverse ways of doing things that I'd say that
any single solution won't even apply to the majority.

There's the data format requirement, and the list goes on and on.   What
particular aspect is being worked on?   The part that converts data to what
they want?   What about the tools to get the right information?   What about
a handbook that explains what data is required by the babble that shows up
as acronyms or legalese?What about LEA's VPN's?   What standard do they
follow? Once you start down the road analyzing what you have to do after
looking at the requirements, the 'assurances' here, at least, leave more
questions than before.   Without knowing what WISPA's doing, or anyone else
is doing, we don't even know what parts won't work for us and we need to try
to synthesize in two weeks.

I have many hours of reading  everything I can find, starting with the rules
published by the FCC.   Much of what is being said on this list by WISPA
CALEA project people appears to conflict with what I read from the FCC
itself.Once you start through the process they outline, you will FULLY
comply, or you will exit the business, and that FULLY comply requires a
lot of things that have been pooh-pooh'ed publicly here.

Now, not to pick a fight, which I don't want to do.   Nor to argue the
merits of ANY of this,  I consider myself reasonably bright and at least
somewhat capable of running a WISP... And yet I cannot, seriusly, cannot
figure out what I really have to do and not do.

Much of what's being discussed here and elsewhere is VERY confusing.For
instance,  I keep reading that if you follow the industry standard, then you
only have to do what's in the standard.  But if you don't, then you have to
do everything they ask.   How the heck can the standard be acceptable if it
doesn't do everything they want?If we must capture all the traffic, then
it must be done at the client end.   If we  can't, then we really ARE NOT
compliant.   What's the point in working on something that's obviously
deficient in the first place?

Mostly, a lot of us just understand in our guts, that they have all the
power, and absolutely NO hesitation in destroying us individually.
Washington DC DOES NOT CARE ABOUT INDIVIDUAL PROVIDERS.  Learn this, accept
it, it is the definitive truth.Reassurances that they're not out to get
us is nothing more than the attitude of a few political types in DC that
have talked to WISPA people.   We won't be dealing with them.  Their
assurances are...  worth less than the ink required to print them out.
The only hesitation they have, is if they get painted badly in the evening
news.And we'll never make the news.

The fact is, the people enforcing the rules are going to go by the letter.
The absolute letter, bent as far as possible in the direction they want it
bent.   And that won't be our favor.Enforcement won't be impressed by
but I was assured you won't put me out of business.We're just a number
and name, and not even a face.   They'll do what government does... hand out
fines as agressively as they can justify.  And since none of us can
individually mount a defense of any kind, we ARE gone and dead.

Why WISPA did not say in first response This CANNOT BE DONE, I have no
idea.   But you spoke for us and said you thought it ws a good idea.   You
killed us without any more consideration, apparently, than DC has for us.
I say this to the people who communicated / filed / responded to the FCC and
FBI.

Frankly, I suggest we collectively hire some legal counsel to find some way
of just stepping around it or a solid strategy for dealing with the fallout.
Some real legal eagle shark type stuff.  I suspect whether we do our utmost
or ignore it, we're mostly going to end up in the same shoes.






- Original Message - 
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance



 I personally do not believe that any CALEA can be cost effective. Quite
 simply, solving CALEA requires spending money without earning any
 additional revenue. The only way to justify the CALEA expense is to
accept
 it as a cost of doing business. This means simply that your market
 opportunity is lost if you aren't CALEA compliant. I firmly believe every
 

Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page....

2007-04-29 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page


 We've got a long way to go yet.

No, we have 3 weeks.


 But here are a few things so far.

 You don't NEED a safe harbor.  You don't HAVE to follow anyone's industry
 standard to be compliant.

No, of course not.   Can YOU do this on your own?   I suspect not.



 You don't need a TTP.

Only if you're so well educated in networking that you can use the VERY
geeky tools out there to rip the data and headers apart and put it all back
together in  the form they demand it be provided in...  with perfect
accuracy.


 What you DO have to do is collect specific data.  How you do so is up to
 you.

Of course.  Since most of us can't do that,  we HAVE to have third party
something, be it software or hardware or services.


 You do have to do it without tipping off the suspect.

 You do have to be able to verify it's authenticity at a later date.

This means you better be an expert at what you're doing.   I have a decent
understanding of what's asked for, but absolutely NO practical experience,
and not even any theoretical education on how its done.


 You do have to do as much as you can to help LEA.  If you do not follow
*a*
 standard, you've got to try to do anything that LEA asks of you.  If you
 follow a standard then you only have to do what is required by the
standard.

In other words, if you don't follow a standard then you're totally
screwed, unless you have one of those brilliant geniuses on staff who can do
anything.


 CALEA is reasonable just like emissions on power plants is reasonable.
 Mark, when you were a mechanic you had to dispose of old oil, solvents,
 brake dust etc. in specific ways that were more expensive than just
dumping
 it in the parking lot or down the drain.  The costs are sometimes

Sure.  We BURNED IT.   Got useful heat from it.

 transferred to the end user because it's REASONABLE for the business
 operator (or home owner or whatever) to take some responsibility for
making
 this a better country.  No shame in that.

NOT AT ALL.   It is NOT reasonable to expect the vast majority of the
operators to be able to do ANY of this, from the 24/7/365 phone answering to
the deep technical knowledge, to the redesign of networks to the incredibly
expensive TTP's.Trust me, Marlon, those TTP's are out to screw you as
hard as they can.   Competition?   There WILL NOT BE ANY.   If you have to
sign an NDA to get a price, this is worse than the telephone company's
competition- which does not exist.


 By the time we (wispa) get done with CALEA we'll have a low/no cost option
 for the average company.  Some of you will likely have to redesign your

Marlon, THERE IS NO AVERAGE COMPANY!That's the whole problem in a
nutshell.The AVERAGE is going to be very small, since the  vast majority
of networks (by number) are little bitty things with 1 to 20 people
informally sharing something.

 networks a bit.  That won't be all bad as you'll also have more ability to
 understand what's happening on your network and to stop things like
 broadcast storms etc.

I built my network right to begin with.  I have no issues whatsoever with
broadcast storms or otherwise.I only have to deal with things like virus
and malware infected clients.




 You guys really do have to stop panicking!  You're scaring the stuffing
out
 of too many people.  This isn't a bad law and it's doesn't have to be
 horribly expensive.

You still do not get it.  IT IS WRONG for them to transfer law enforcement
duties to us, for their convenience.   Dangit Marlon, it's just as if the
cops demanded the gas stations GIVE them all the gas their cars need, and
that the restaurants feed them for free and mechanics fix the cars for free,
ISP's give them internet for free, telcos give them phones for free, blah,
blah, blah.

And darnit, I want to scare the stuffing out of EVERYONE so they'll stop
being passive fools and STAND UP FOR THEMSELVES, instead of being wiped out
like lemmings.


 MOST of us will likely have hybrid plans in place.  Some of the work we'll
 do ourselves with our routers, servers etc.  Some of the work we'll
contract
 out to people like Bearhill.

And who can afford a TTP?Maybe you can.  I don't even collect a
paycheck.   Where the hell do you think that money will come from?Gads.
Have you completely forgotten what it was like to start up?   Just hanging
on  by your teeth, when you had to buy stuff in 1's and 2's and 5's because
that's ALL THERE WAS in the bank and all there was going to be?You never
had to ask people for 10 days or 30 days now and then on a bill?   You think
money just grows on trees and we're all swimming in the falling leaves?


 marlon

 - Original Message - 
 From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 1:02 

Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page.... telecom services

2007-04-29 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page telecom services


 Mark Koskenmaki wrote:

 
 There are many other ways for law enforcement to get what it needs.
Even
 better would be a REAL law, written properly, and funded properly by
 Congress, instead of this absurdity about information services and
 telecommuncations services.   You know, of course, that this hybrid
 'standing' is about as shaky as a sand castle on the beach.  It wont' be
any
 time before we're fully telecommuncations services and the mandates and
 regulations and controls fly at us like vultures to roadkill or flies to
a
 cowpie.
 
 
 
 
 Actually, shaky would be incorrect. Please read the Supreme Court's
opinion on Brand-X. It states in no

Shaky is the term I used, because this classification isn't law, just FCC
opinion.   That's obviously subject to whatever breeze blows through DC.
Now that there is no longer consistency in all matters,  the defense against
further redefinition is little more than how much noise and ruckus we can
raise.


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.

2007-04-29 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?


 Dawn DiPietro wrote:
  Mike,
 
  If you think you are under the radar you are sorely mistaken. You
  admitted on a public list that gear you use is not certified.
 
  Regards,
  Dawn DiPietro

 Yeah, but your over the limit! :)

 Heck why go after a 3000 little guys when you can go after one big guy.
 They've been selling unlicensed amplifiers and uncertified systems for
 as long as I can remember. Heck, talk about posting a message on this
 list, what about having a full blown catalog online advertizing US sales
 with prices next to them?

 I believe they should have spent the 3 or 4 g's to get the systems they
 sell certified before they sold them.

 They make millions easily selling uncertified gear and it's not a secret.

Ohh, I feel another rant coming on.. .George, you better take a chill pill
:)

While this is a peripheral issue with certification,  I have made
suggestions to the FCC about certification of individual components.I
kinda doubt it's going to happen.  At least not soon,  regulators are
notorious for not liking change, since it makes things less tidy for them.

I buy computer components... motherboad, processors, video cards, and so
on...  And tires,  and car parts, and actually quite a few other things that
have technical performance reviews by people who have tested things.

I WISH that manufacturers could certify components, because then we'd have
published real-wolrd performance graphs and charts to use for comparison
when we buy things.   Just certified really isn't good enough in my
view.   I recall that a good number of years ago, there was a hack for a
linksys AP that turned up the power.  Someone used an SA on it and found
that when you did it, the output became incredibly dirty.

Certified or not, I would like to know that what I buy is clean rf-wise.
Low OOB emissions.   Minimal out of channel emissions,  selective recievers
that reject adjacent channel noise.  Really comparable specs for dealing
with noise and S/N ratios, etc.

I really dislike not knowing those things about what I buy.   And, due to
the way certification works, certification has almost no meaning when it
comes to those important RF characteristics.Early on in my investigating
the wireless business, lots of people were testing new products and
publishing the results.  I dont' see ANY of that going on anymore.

Any suggestions to motivate manufacturers?

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page....

2007-04-29 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page



 - Original Message - 
 From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:55 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page
 Sigh.  No we don't.  We have as long as we need.

So the deadline is no more?   I read it.  There will be no exemptions and
there will be extensions.   I read the rules, published by the FCC.   So,
did they lie, or has there been an update nobody's been told about?


 Nope.  I'll have to hire Butch to help me out.  Probably Mike too.  But
 those two things won't cost all that much.  It'll just be some programing
on
 devices I already own.  Not much worse than what I do when I need some
 router or server work done now.

 You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Nope.


 I honestly don't understand why you want to pile all of this stress upon
 yourself.  Those of us that are EMBEDDED in the problem aren't as worried
as
 you are.  If it were really as bad as you're making this out to be we, of
 all people, should be ready to put a bullet in our heads.

That's because you have money and credit and don't really care about doing
the right thing, vis a vis federal mandates.


 Instead, I'm more at ease than I was before WISPA started it's efforts.

I'd be a lot more at ease if WISPA was going to stand up for the industry.


 
 
 
  You don't need a TTP.
 
  Only if you're so well educated in networking that you can use the VERY
  geeky tools out there to rip the data and headers apart and put it all
  back
  together in  the form they demand it be provided in...  with perfect
  accuracy.

 Nope.  There are free tools out there to help and people that don't charge
 more than OPEC to help you out.

But you can't point to a single one of them, and you have no idea how to
make my network compliant.  Not a clue.   This is why I find this it's no
big deal' so amazingly frustrating.


 
 
  What you DO have to do is collect specific data.  How you do so is up
to
  you.
 
  Of course.  Since most of us can't do that,  we HAVE to have third party
  something, be it software or hardware or services.

 Nope.  That'll be the easiest but it's not a requirement.

Marlon,  either come out and state you think the requirements are just loose
guidelines, or start admitting we're all clueless.


 But, heaven forbid, you might actually have to ask someone for some help
:-)

Sure.  Send over 10 grand.   That might do the job.


 
 
  You do have to do it without tipping off the suspect.
 
  You do have to be able to verify it's authenticity at a later date.
 
  This means you better be an expert at what you're doing.   I have a
decent
  understanding of what's asked for, but absolutely NO practical
experience,
  and not even any theoretical education on how its done.

 Nope.  It just means you have to keep something called a HASH file.
 Whatever that is.

The hash is nothing more than a key file to assure a file is unchanged.

It has nothing to do with the things I mentioned above.


 
 
  You do have to do as much as you can to help LEA.  If you do not follow
  *a*
  standard, you've got to try to do anything that LEA asks of you.  If
you
  follow a standard then you only have to do what is required by the
  standard.
 
  In other words, if you don't follow a standard then you're totally
  screwed, unless you have one of those brilliant geniuses on staff who
can
  do
  anything.

 Well, certainly following a standard is going to make things cheaper and
 easier on us.  But hey, that's part of why people should support WISPA.
 We're putting forth the effort to be able to develop a standard aimed
right
 at our industry.  Cool huh!?!?!?!?!

Not really.  It wont' help me any.


 
 
  CALEA is reasonable just like emissions on power plants is reasonable.
  Mark, when you were a mechanic you had to dispose of old oil, solvents,
  brake dust etc. in specific ways that were more expensive than just
  dumping
  it in the parking lot or down the drain.  The costs are sometimes
 
  Sure.  We BURNED IT.   Got useful heat from it.

 And put lots of nice heavy metals in the air.  Nice.  grin

Huh?


 You burned your antifreeze?  Greasy rags?  Solvent?  Right.

You did not ask about antifreeze or greasy rags.Our rags came from a
laundry service.We didn't have any antifreeze to deal with.


 
  transferred to the end user because it's REASONABLE for the business
  operator (or home owner or whatever) to take some responsibility for
  making
  this a better country.  No shame in that.
 
  NOT AT ALL.   It is NOT reasonable to expect the vast majority of the
  operators to be able to do ANY of this, from the 24/7/365 phone
answering
  to
  the deep technical knowledge, to the redesign of networks to the
  incredibly
  expensive TTP's

Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.

2007-04-29 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.


 See comment inline, near end of post.

 Wrong. Certification DOES test for out of band emissions; it also tests
 for out of channel emissions. It does not test for receiver selectivity
 because that is not a characteristic that will mess up the band. Part 15
 certification deals primarily with dirty transmitted signals, not poor
 receivers.
 jack


Well, I should have been more clear.   Yes, there are tests and certain
limits.   Just being good enough isn't what I was wanting.  I'd like the
best stuff, because doing so means you minimize self interference, etc.



 
  Any suggestions to motivate manufacturers?
 

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


 -- 
 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] from WISPA's home page....

2007-04-29 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page



 - Original Message - 
 From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 9:22 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page


 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 8:28 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page
 
 
 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:55 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page
  Sigh.  No we don't.  We have as long as we need.
 
  So the deadline is no more?   I read it.  There will be no exemptions
and
  there will be extensions.   I read the rules, published by the FCC.
So,
  did they lie, or has there been an update nobody's been told about?

 No changes.  I'm saying that you don't have to follow a standard to be
 compliant!


Huh?  You said we have as long as we need???


 roflmao.  Oh boy, do you have me pegged wrong!

 I happen to think that CALEA is a PERFECTLY reasonable request.  And I

Well, we could not disagree more.

 happen to think it's got pretty good safeguards in place.  After all, they
 have to go through me to get to my customers.  *I'm* the only one in a
 possition to be able to snoop on my customers via my network.  And I know
 *I'm* not gonna do that.

I don't want to be in the position of having to do that.


 
 
  Instead, I'm more at ease than I was before WISPA started it's efforts.
 
  I'd be a lot more at ease if WISPA was going to stand up for the
industry.

 Mark, do you not believe that that horse isn't already dead?  There's
 nothing left to stand for.

Ok.  If you say so.   Then WISPA has no purpose.


 And honestly, CALEA is about as unreasonable as requiring that people all
 drive on the right hand side of the road.

Sheesh.

 OK, clue me in on how YOUR network is going to be so impossible to make
 compliant.  We have some very smart people on the CALEA list, we also have
 the ear of the FBI.  I'll bet we can find a way that you can afford and
make
 your network compliant.

I've already told you.


 Or don't you want to fix this problem?

I don't want my industry playing dead when it comes to injustice from Uncle
Sam.


 Neither one.  The requirements are pretty specific.  But HOW you get to
that
 point has been left up to you.  They just want the data.  The way you get
it
 to them really is pretty loose.  I know you don't think that, but it's
true.

Right.   Somehow I'll bet that getting the specific data into the format
required is beyond the technical understanding of MOST of us.


 I ALMOST disbanded the CALEA committee.  There, for the first time, I've
 said it.  We need to do this though.  Not because no one else can, but
 because no one else HAS.

 
 
  But, heaven forbid, you might actually have to ask someone for some
help
  :-)
 
  Sure.  Send over 10 grand.   That might do the job

 See, there ya go.  Where did you get that number?  Oh yeah, from a mailing
 list that was talking about companies profiteering via our ignorance.
It's
 not $10k it's $100k!  You must have missed that memo.  grin

No, marlon.   That's getting a building, some new backhaul eqipment, a
router, and new site leases.   THAT is what's required, Marlon.And
that's all BEFORE I buy a TTP's service, or a box from someone, or any other
such things.   it's presuming that I can somehow muddle through the morass
of stupidity on my own.


 Mark, ASK Bearhill, Imagestream, Mike E etc.  See if they'll give you a
 quote for your network.  Then tell the rest of us so we can all either
start
 sweating more or relax a bit.  thanks

They have absolutely no clue what my network looks like, how the equipment
it's built on works, or anything else relevant.

And, no matter what their fee... I can't pay it.

 \
 
 
  
  
   You do have to do it without tipping off the suspect.
  
   You do have to be able to verify it's authenticity at a later date.
  
   This means you better be an expert at what you're doing.   I have a
  decent
   understanding of what's asked for, but absolutely NO practical
  experience,
   and not even any theoretical education on how its done.
 
  Nope.  It just means you have to keep something called a HASH file.
  Whatever that is.
 
  The hash is nothing more than a key file to assure a file is unchanged.
 
  It has nothing to do with the things I mentioned above.

 It's the hardest part of the process.  At least as far as I can tell so
far.

no, it's not.  It's a simple command line applicaiton that returns the hash
for a file / files / all files in a dir, etc.

It's just tht you're going to have to maintain the original raw data

Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering

2007-04-28 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
Have you ever driven from Odessa to Spokane?


- Original Message - 
From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 6:22 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering


 Marlon's main city is Odessa, WA. Within 65 miles is Spokane, WA that has
hundreds of thousands of people, plus all the suburbs.

 It seems he is short sighted by not expanding into that market 6-8 years
ago. Sixty miles is nothing... I have a single 73 mile shot that has been
running 100% uptime for almost 2 years.

 Travis
 Microserv

 Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
 I have to come to Marlon's defense a bit here.The idaho falls /
 pocatello area has DRAMATICALLY more people than the central washington
 wasteland Marlon serves.

 You serve the populated areas of Bonneville, Bingham and Bannock Counties,
 if I estimate your coverage.  This approaches a quarter million people, at
 least for the three counties, it does.

 Marlon's town is about 1000 people, Lincoln and Adams  County together
have
 less than 30K people, and his main competition is a utility which is using
 it's financial might to subsidize buried fiber to every home in Grant
 County.

 I have seen Marlon's territory, driven through it, and seen his
operation.
 It's a collection of small  community markets.  I would say that in spite
of
 being small, he probably has considerably higher market share than you do,
 for the places he covers.

 None of this is to disparage anyone.   But you can't compare apples and
 oranges like that and have it make any sense at all.   I suspect you'd
 struggle mightily to adapt to marlon's situation... and vice versa.

 Let's not go off on each other here..  We have much better targets to aim
 at.

 - Original Message - 
 From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 9:19 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering


   Well, I seem to be holding my own ground pretty well... and I DON'T turn
 customers over to my competition... over 65 towers in operation, over
 3,000 wireless subs, hundreds of DSL subs, almost 50 fiber subs (banks,
 hospitals, insurance, etc.)... and NO outside investors, stock holders,
 or any long-term debt whatsoever. :)

 (OT: Our annual gross revenue has been within 1% of the previous year
 for the past 4 years. However, I have managed to decrease our expenses
 by 10% every year. While this doesn't seem like a lot, realize we are a
 multi-million dollar company. There is EASY money to be made by just
 cutting expenses. Things like shopping around for better CC rates,
 better insurance rates, cheaper bandwidth, etc.)

 Also, if you leased your equipment, you could put the new tower up for
 less than $200 per month for EVERYTHING. ;)

 rant
 Call it what you will Marlon, but I believe you started your wireless
 operation around 1997 (going off your website). In 1997 we started our
 wireless service as well. Today we have over 3,000 connected wireless
 subs and are growing at over 100 per month. We have been profitable
 since our first year in business. This will be _another_ record breaking
 year for us. We have a backbone uptime of 99.99% over the last 2 years
 (including scheduled maintenance). Our wireless subs see a 99.9% uptime
 (including maintenance, interferance issues, blown AP's, etc). We
 deliver over 150Mbps of internet traffic during business hours using
 three diverse providers (DS3 via Qwest fiber, OC3 via seperate Qwest
 fiber, Level3 via fastethernet via seperate fiber via seperate NOC). We
 provide service to 8 entire school districts (out of a possible 10 in
 our entire 25,000 square mile coverage area).
 /rant

 So, if I'm short sighted and you are not, why is my company 10x the size
 and making 10x the profit when both of us started at the same time?

 Travis
 Microserv

 Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
 - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 8:16 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering


   Why wouldn't you just put up your own AP's and service the same area
 rather than give that customer away to the competition?
 Spectrum congestion.

 Cashflow

 Speed.

 Expanded coverage, very quickly, for no money.

   I would spend $5k and put up my own tower before I turn a
potential
 customer away to the competition. I've done it many times over the
 years and it has always paid off. Once one person is connected, they
 tell their neighbors about it. Pretty soon an AP that was put up for
 a single customer has 10 or 20 customers on it.
 Um, the competitors ALREADY have networks in place!

   Doesn't seem to make business sense to me. Plus when they need tech
 support, how do you troubleshoot the competitors AP's? How do you do
 RF link tests and packet loss tests at 10:00PM when the customer is
 on the phone?
 I call the competitor on his cell phone

[WISPA] from WISPA's home page....

2007-04-28 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
I know you're absolutely sick of hearing about it.

But here's someone who actually intends to stand up and do something about
CALEA.   WISPA needs to join this fight.  If you want these people
supporting WISPA, support them!

www.wispa.org

Will WISPA actively seek to defend small networks - most of which will be
wireless - from being simply shut down becasue they can't comply with
mandates designed for telephone companies?

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page....

2007-04-28 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page


 Who is that someone?

So, you won't read WISPA's home page?  It's the first article.  I have
wondered why nobody would even mention it...  So i finally did.

 Why does wispa want to take an antagonistic stance towards legal high
 tech wiretapping?

BECAUSE IT IS FREAKING WRONG, GEORGE, for the government to shift the cost
of law enforcement to specific business entities for its own convenience.
Why can't you see this?


 Isn't legal wiretapping essential to law enforcement?

Of course it is.  Where am I objecting to it?  Nowhere.  I object to an
extremely intrusive, expensive, and WRONG mandate on our industry.  And
further, I object to the fact that WISPA's not even slightly interested in
defending small operators from being wiped out.


 The only thing I can think of is to seek funds from the feds to
 implement this.

Bahhh.   No, George.  Just abandon the mandate that ISP's have to conduce LE
actions at their own expense.   Du.   So simple it boggles the mind.
Let law enforcement pay for it's own needs.  CALEA's mandate is NO DIFFERENT
from demanding gas stations fill every cop car for free, because they get
the privelege of making profit off motorists.

BTW, what's your schedule and whom did you hire to be on call 24/7/365 to
carry out LI?   Your registered phone must be answered, or you are not
compliant.

How's a one man operator supposed to do this?Even two people?There's
approximately  85 hours a week my business phone is not answered.   I'm
leaving for the coast on May 3rd and won't be back till the 7th.   That
increases the no response to more like 140 hours a week that nobody's
available during that time, since I don't expect my help to stay up late or
answer before 9 AM.

I am not a traditional ISP George.  I have no office.  I have no central
network facilty.   I own not a single server machine.   My access point
traffic does not go through anyplace except my bandwidth provider's server
room .   And the network expansion going on will end even that, and there
WILL BE NO LOCATION where all of my traffic goes, when provider 2 comes
online and is routed dynamically, and my network converts to a self-healing
mesh.

There's at least one lone voice in Congress asking for relief for small
operators who simply CANNOT do this as mandated.   Will YOU stand up for
those people and defend them?   They are  the future LIFEBLOOD of WISPA.
If you're ever going to have the numbers in WISPA, these are where the
numbers are.

Of course, you're management, and I'm just an outsider.



 George

 Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
  I know you're absolutely sick of hearing about it.
 
  But here's someone who actually intends to stand up and do something
about
  CALEA.   WISPA needs to join this fight.  If you want these people
  supporting WISPA, support them!
 
  www.wispa.org
 
  Will WISPA actively seek to defend small networks - most of which will
be
  wireless - from being simply shut down becasue they can't comply with
  mandates designed for telephone companies?
 

 -- 
 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] RE: [WISP] Post card marketing

2007-04-28 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

Hey, Rick, that's cool.   I plan on doing something similar, but with
doorhangers this summer.  College kids will be contracted to go drive around
and hang these on the doors of every farm, home, whatever, that appears to
be in range of an AP.

We expect to get real busy :)



- Original Message - 
From: Smith, Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 7:37 PM
Subject: [WISPA] RE: [WISP] Post card marketing


We've printed ours on a color laser.   No problems mailing them.   We
got some returned due to no suitable mail receptacle, and the printing
all looked fine...



I attached the most recent we sent out.  No calls on it yet, but we
mailed it Thursday.



R



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 9:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WISP] Post card marketing



The printer told me that they would advise me to use labels instead of
direct printing because the ink would run.  I mentioned using a laser
printer.  Wouldn't the toner be fused to the card and thus not run?  If
they're referring to the card itself running because of the heat of the
laser printer, wouldn't an inkjet solve that?





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





- Original Message - 

From: Mike Hammett mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:07 PM

Subject: [WISP] Post card marketing



Does anyone have examples of post card marketing they have done?





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












 -- 
 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] from WISPA's home page....

2007-04-28 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
I won't defend all the crazy intrusions by government.

But this is not a fee to conduct business.   This isn't a tax.   This is a
mandate to carry out the functions of law enforcement for them, purely for
thier convenience.   It isn't even a regulation to enforce quality standards
on internet services, nor consumer protection from shoddy internet services,
nor is it even a protection from badly conducted wireless operations.
Theoretically, your contractor's license and so on were consumer
protection concerning the business you were in.   The effectiveness can be
debated, and this is not the place for that.

But, CALEA has NOTHING to do with providing internet services nor consumer
protection.  It is simply transferrence of law enforcement functions to YOU
to do at your own expense, by your own people and at YOUR OWN LIABILITY.
If you mix up someone's traffic, because someone made a typo, do you REALLY
think that you will be protected from the wrath of the legal eagles out to
get you?   Don't count on it.

And it is impossible for small operators to be in complete compliance.   And
it presents an obstacle to technological innovation and it presents MAJOR
obstacles to certtain types of desired network types, such as mesh.

There are many other ways for law enforcement to get what it needs.   Even
better would be a REAL law, written properly, and funded properly by
Congress, instead of this absurdity about information services and
telecommuncations services.   You know, of course, that this hybrid
'standing' is about as shaky as a sand castle on the beach.  It wont' be any
time before we're fully telecommuncations services and the mandates and
regulations and controls fly at us like vultures to roadkill or flies to a
cowpie.

It's a very small thing to support the notion that small ISP's be exempt for
obvious reasons.  But you won't even do that?  Why the bloody hell not?
What have you got against them?



- Original Message - 
From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page




 Mark Koskenmaki wrote:

  Why does wispa want to take an antagonistic stance towards legal high
  tech wiretapping?
 
  BECAUSE IT IS FREAKING WRONG, GEORGE, for the government to shift the
cost
  of law enforcement to specific business entities for its own
convenience.
  Why can't you see this?
 

 When I was in the electrical contracting business, I was forced to have
 all kinds of fees laid upon me to conduct business.

 This isp business is one of the least regulated with the least intrusive
 and least government costs.

 If your moaning and groaning about what will probably turn out to be
 very low cost solutions, (an assumption) what are you going to do when
 it comes time to hire employees and then fall inline with those
 government regulations and costs?


 -- 
 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] from WISPA's home page....

2007-04-28 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
Because, like you, he can read the rules, and come to the conclusion that he
simply cannot find a way to do everythign required.  I can't either.

You have safe harbor only if you're using an industry standard, and
nobody can point us to one.   Unless we have some kind pre-packaged setup,
lots of people, including me, have absolutely NO IDEA how to do all the data
manipulation and whatnot that's supposedly required.

the only pre-packaged solutions are hundreds of dollars a month with a
sizeable setup up front or 10, 20, or more thousands of dollars for a
turnkey box that does at least some of the functions required.

OpenCalea offers nothing to people in my shoes.

We're all of what, three weeks from having to file that we're in compliance,
and we can't point to anything yet?   Where's this cheap solution going to
magically spring from, and be trouble free and bug free and compliant?

Face reality, it's not here and won't be.  Instead, we're goin to string
along, making promises and statements that we're going to comply, while we
still have no price tag, much less cash in the bank to pay this.   The
longer we go, the less time there is to develop alternatives to some
announced standard mechanism of for doing stuff, or some kind of standard
software..

We're flying blind, here.   None of us small guys have lawers, consultants,
or super techies who can just do this, much less implement the time
constraints and 24/7/365 aspects, etc.  And we're wondering why the only
organization devoted to our industry won't even appeal on our behalf to the
authorities, and try to authoritatively explain to them they've gone far
beyond the capabilities of most of the target networks.



- Original Message - 
From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page


 How do you know what the costs are Ed?
 George

 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page....

2007-04-28 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
don't forget, you can't charge LEA for the TTP's services.  You may pay that
TTP for years and they never do a single thing for you.




- Original Message - 
From: Edward H. Winters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] from WISPA's home page


 George,

 From talking to equipment manufactures, law enforcement, and trusted
 third party providers.

 I would roll my own, but even if i had a working intercept device
 (opencalea's tap program) it would still need to forward the
 collected data to the TTP for mediation.

 Ed

 On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 20:53:48 -0700
 George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  How do you know what the costs are Ed?
  George
 
 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the...

2007-04-27 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the...


 John,

 You're being sarcastic here, right?

 I'd be really surprised to hear that any certification ever was voided
 because a connector became more available.

 I'm starting to feel sorry for the poor, old FCC. First off, certain
 business elements want to eliminate them. Second, certain political
 interests (controlled by certain business interests) want to control
 them and determine what rules they make. Third, they regularly get
 threatened by Congress with reduced budgets. Fourth, their job is to
 implement the (often vague) laws made by Congress. Fifth, they have to
 be somewhat vague to try to apply the laws to everyone without pissing
 off anyone. Sixth, they have to be somewhat specific so their rules
 don't get challenged in court by the previously mentioned business
 interests. Seven, their engineers have to be pretty smart to know how
 wireless really works and what engineering principles to write into
 regulations. Eight, their lawyers have to be pretty good writers to
 translate the engineering principles into clearly-written rules and
 regulations. Nine, they have to craft a website that makes it fairly
 easy for the public to do business with them. Ten, they have to have
 pretty thick skin to not get distracted and become vindictive when
 everyone attacks them.

 Sheeesh, I never found myself defending the FCC before. Unfortunately,
 unlicensed does not mean unregulated. Responsible business people (which
 is what we are) strive to understand the conditions under which the
 regulatory agency works and strive to interact constructively with the
 people who work for that agency. I think we've found (and will continue
 to find) that most of the FCC employees will do what they can to be
 responsive to our needs if only we will communicate those needs in a
 clear, responsible, and timely fashion.

 But I'm probably preaching to the choir here because most WISP-folk
 already know this stuff and are already playing a constructive role,
right?
  jack


There's a reason we call them servants.   If they don't like the heat,
better find a nice cushy job as a small business startup while trying to
defend yourself against a bunch of over-eager regulators.


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC

2007-04-27 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
I hate to say it, but it looks like the FCC is going to squander massive
opportunity, and instead, settle for some money...

(sigh).

This nationwide broadband network for public safety is absurd.

Yet another means of communication that won't be around when it's needed,
because it'll be down or something.




- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:00 PM
Subject: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC


 196 page decision

 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.pdf

  SERVICE RULES FOR THE 698-746, 747-762, AND 777-792 MHZ BANDS, ET. AL.
 The Commission adopted rules governing wireless licenses in the 698-806
 MHz spectrum band, commonly referred to as the 700 MHz Band. (Dkt No.
 94-102, 96-86). Action by:  the Commission. Adopted:
 04/25/2007 by RO. (FCC No. 07-72).  PSHSB, WTB  , WTB
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.doc
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.doc
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.doc
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.doc
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.doc
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.doc
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.pdf
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.pdf
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.pdf
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.pdf
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.pdf
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.pdf
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.txt
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.txt
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.txt
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.txt
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.txt
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.txt


 -- 
 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] 700 MHz decision at FCC

2007-04-27 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
Justin...  I am aware of the problems revolving around the inability to talk
to each other via voice radio.   I would tend to agree that frequency
coordination seems to be a terrible issue.   The cited reasons for this
was the 9-11 problems with coordination of emergency services, and NO
hurricane problems.  Nobody blew up the NO radio communications facilities.
They just died because they lacked any means of self support when the power
went out, and the phone and the agencies weren't talking to each other, and
didn't seem to know who to talk to for what.That's just the outside
perception, at least.

But as far as I can tell,  this isn't about talking to each other, it's
about building a digital network - IP based, perhaps?

I'm still confused as to why we can't have fire department radios that can
talk to the cops, ambulances, and whoever else.   A lack of spectrum doesn't
seem to be issue, rather it appears to be political boundaries between each
department, and no mechanism to deal with widespread communications
problems.

Cyren Call wanted 30 mhz to build a nationwide network.I'm just not
cognizant of how this is going to somehow magically solve the problem with
agencies having turf wars, and people either not following, or not haveing a
rational plan for dealing with widespread disasters.

I'm welcome to explanations of how things are going to improve with a
national digital network that's subject to all the same issues as telco
outages, broadband outages, etc, etc... ???


- Original Message - 
From: Justin Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC



 - Original Message - 
 From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:22 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC


 I hate to say it, but it looks like the FCC is going to squander massive
  opportunity, and instead, settle for some money...
 
  (sigh).
 
  This nationwide broadband network for public safety is absurd.
 
 Why would you say this?  I served on the technology committee that drafted
 the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) report to the
 FCC/NTIA.  The initiative was a response to the first world trade center
 bombing in 93 when public safety agencies from all surrounding communities
 converted on South Manhattan ... and yet the public safety officers could
 more easily throw stones / rocks at each other than communicate on their
 radios.  In PSWAC we focused on compatibility (I know you think it's an
 evil, innovation stifling word), but of course the difference in frequency
 assignment of every agencies equipment was equally problematic.  A
 nationwide allocation of compatible equipment seems eminently logical
as
 the cleanest solution to the dilema.  Of course, little improved following
 the later 2001 trade center bombing, and money didn't get ponied up for
 replacement equipment for a long time (not until the 2006 democratic
 congress identified this as one of their first 100 hrs issues [the
 connection being that the 9/11 commission identified this as a lingering
 unaddressed problem that public safety communications had yet to be
 funded]), but this is essentially the logic behind the 4.9GHz
allocation -- 
 and all allocations for public safety since PSWAC.

  Yet another means of communication that won't be around when it's
needed,
  because it'll be down or something.
 
 Why would you say this?  Public Safety takes care of their radio equipment
 as well as they take care of their firearms and vehicles.  In fact, I've
 heard that a patrolman gets docked more $ for losing his 2-way radio than
 for losing his gun!  Any failure of a public safety communications radio
 network is an automatic inquiry / investigation event.

 Both your comments appear to be slaps at public safety communications with
 no explaination.  Do you have any background or experience with public
 safety communications to help understand what you object to?  I don't
 understand either comment.  What's your beef?

 Rich

 
 
 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:00 PM
  Subject: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC
 
 
  196 page decision
 
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.pdf
 
   SERVICE RULES FOR THE 698-746, 747-762, AND 777-792 MHZ BANDS, ET. AL.
  The Commission adopted rules governing wireless licenses in the 698-806
  MHz spectrum band, commonly referred to as the 700 MHz Band. (Dkt No.
  94-102, 96-86). Action by:  the Commission. Adopted:
  04/25/2007 by RO. (FCC No. 07-72).  PSHSB, WTB  , WTB
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.doc
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.doc
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.doc
  http

Re: [WISPA] Re: CALEA

2007-04-27 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 4:03 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Re: CALEA


 Getting the data for the LEA is just one part of compliance. What about
 the more practical issues?

 CALEA requires:
 Establishment of policies and procedures for supervision and control of
 officers and employees

Who's got a coupel days to write legalese documents that detail everyting
they wanna know?

 Designating a 24/7/265 POC for the LEA

This means that no one or two man WISP can be compliant, unless you hire an
answering service, and have people on contact, or else have two of you on
duty 365 days a year, 12 hours a day.One man can't do it himself.

 Validating legal authorization for the ELSUR

What's ELSUR?   I thought I'd managed to uncover all the acronyms already..
Guess not.

 Maintaining secure and accurate records

A summary of all the records you have to maintain would be helpful.

 Reporting any CALEA security breaches




 AND... filling with the FCC how you are going to do the above.

 Not implementing the policies and procedures may result in legal
liability.

 Assuming you have all that is needed to be compliant how do you actually
 comply with an order? You are going to at least need to collect the
 following information:
 Telephone number/circuit ID
 Start date/time
 Officer presenting order
 Judge issuing order
 Type of ELSUR
 Supervising carrier personnel
 Certification of “senior official...”
 Subscriber name
 Date/time order served
 Court issuing order
 Court docket/file number
 Law enforcement officers authorized to receive info
 LEA contact numbers
 Carrier employees involved

 And what about the warrant's validity? CALEA requires the carrier to
 determine the following:
 Does the Court have jurisdiction over Carrier?
 Does the Court Order provide for Technical Assistance?
 Has the Court provided for compensation?
 If problems arise, how does the carrier address the issues –
 inside/outside counsel, Service Bureau, etc

 Just in case you are wondering, acting on an invalid subpoena is $1,000
 min fine. Further, if you are acting in bad faith, the court can create,
 at carrier expense, a court-supervised monitor of your compliance to
 ensure due diligence. Any violations detected by the monitor can result
 in additional fines.

 -Matt

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC

2007-04-27 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
O ...  Interesting.   I had always wondered exactly why mobile units
were isolated.

Now I know.   Perhaps the fancy technology is a hindrance, rather than a
help.

Plain old PTT half duplex would work wonders, it seems.



- Original Message - 
From: Jonathan Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 4:53 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC


 ...well, first of all, the obsession with full duplex via a non-failsafe
 centralized system was a substantial part of the blame.  The same-service
 radios in the Katrina debacle couldn't talk to each other except through
the
 full-duxer...which, of course, drowned.

 . . . J o n a t h a n

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
 Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 6:49 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC

 Justin...  I am aware of the problems revolving around the inability to
talk
 to each other via voice radio.   I would tend to agree that frequency
 coordination seems to be a terrible issue.   The cited reasons for this
 was the 9-11 problems with coordination of emergency services, and NO
 hurricane problems.  Nobody blew up the NO radio communications
facilities.
 They just died because they lacked any means of self support when the
power
 went out, and the phone and the agencies weren't talking to each other,
and
 didn't seem to know who to talk to for what.That's just the outside
 perception, at least.

 But as far as I can tell,  this isn't about talking to each other, it's
 about building a digital network - IP based, perhaps?

 I'm still confused as to why we can't have fire department radios that can
 talk to the cops, ambulances, and whoever else.   A lack of spectrum
doesn't
 seem to be issue, rather it appears to be political boundaries between
each
 department, and no mechanism to deal with widespread communications
 problems.

 Cyren Call wanted 30 mhz to build a nationwide network.I'm just not
 cognizant of how this is going to somehow magically solve the problem with
 agencies having turf wars, and people either not following, or not haveing
a
 rational plan for dealing with widespread disasters.

 I'm welcome to explanations of how things are going to improve with a
 national digital network that's subject to all the same issues as telco
 outages, broadband outages, etc, etc... ???


 - Original Message -
 From: Justin Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:58 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC


 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:22 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC
 
 
  I hate to say it, but it looks like the FCC is going to squander
massive
   opportunity, and instead, settle for some money...
  
   (sigh).
  
   This nationwide broadband network for public safety is absurd.
  
  Why would you say this?  I served on the technology committee that
drafted
  the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) report to the
  FCC/NTIA.  The initiative was a response to the first world trade center
  bombing in 93 when public safety agencies from all surrounding
communities
  converted on South Manhattan ... and yet the public safety officers
could
  more easily throw stones / rocks at each other than communicate on their
  radios.  In PSWAC we focused on compatibility (I know you think it's
an
  evil, innovation stifling word), but of course the difference in
frequency
  assignment of every agencies equipment was equally problematic.  A
  nationwide allocation of compatible equipment seems eminently
logical
 as
  the cleanest solution to the dilema.  Of course, little improved
following
  the later 2001 trade center bombing, and money didn't get ponied up for
  replacement equipment for a long time (not until the 2006 democratic
  congress identified this as one of their first 100 hrs issues [the
  connection being that the 9/11 commission identified this as a lingering
  unaddressed problem that public safety communications had yet to be
  funded]), but this is essentially the logic behind the 4.9GHz
 allocation -- 
  and all allocations for public safety since PSWAC.
 
   Yet another means of communication that won't be around when it's
 needed,
   because it'll be down or something.
  
  Why would you say this?  Public Safety takes care of their radio
equipment
  as well as they take care of their firearms and vehicles.  In fact, I've
  heard that a patrolman gets docked more $ for losing his 2-way radio
than
  for losing his gun!  Any failure of a public safety communications radio
  network is an automatic inquiry / investigation event.
 
  Both your comments appear to be slaps at public safety communications
with
  no explaination.  Do you

Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering

2007-04-27 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
I have to come to Marlon's defense a bit here.The idaho falls /
pocatello area has DRAMATICALLY more people than the central washington
wasteland Marlon serves.

You serve the populated areas of Bonneville, Bingham and Bannock Counties,
if I estimate your coverage.  This approaches a quarter million people, at
least for the three counties, it does.

Marlon's town is about 1000 people, Lincoln and Adams  County together have
less than 30K people, and his main competition is a utility which is using
it's financial might to subsidize buried fiber to every home in Grant
County.

I have seen Marlon's territory, driven through it, and seen his operation.
It's a collection of small  community markets.  I would say that in spite of
being small, he probably has considerably higher market share than you do,
for the places he covers.

None of this is to disparage anyone.   But you can't compare apples and
oranges like that and have it make any sense at all.   I suspect you'd
struggle mightily to adapt to marlon's situation... and vice versa.

Let's not go off on each other here..  We have much better targets to aim
at.

- Original Message - 
From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering


 Well, I seem to be holding my own ground pretty well... and I DON'T turn
 customers over to my competition... over 65 towers in operation, over
 3,000 wireless subs, hundreds of DSL subs, almost 50 fiber subs (banks,
 hospitals, insurance, etc.)... and NO outside investors, stock holders,
 or any long-term debt whatsoever. :)

 (OT: Our annual gross revenue has been within 1% of the previous year
 for the past 4 years. However, I have managed to decrease our expenses
 by 10% every year. While this doesn't seem like a lot, realize we are a
 multi-million dollar company. There is EASY money to be made by just
 cutting expenses. Things like shopping around for better CC rates,
 better insurance rates, cheaper bandwidth, etc.)

 Also, if you leased your equipment, you could put the new tower up for
 less than $200 per month for EVERYTHING. ;)

 rant
 Call it what you will Marlon, but I believe you started your wireless
 operation around 1997 (going off your website). In 1997 we started our
 wireless service as well. Today we have over 3,000 connected wireless
 subs and are growing at over 100 per month. We have been profitable
 since our first year in business. This will be _another_ record breaking
 year for us. We have a backbone uptime of 99.99% over the last 2 years
 (including scheduled maintenance). Our wireless subs see a 99.9% uptime
 (including maintenance, interferance issues, blown AP's, etc). We
 deliver over 150Mbps of internet traffic during business hours using
 three diverse providers (DS3 via Qwest fiber, OC3 via seperate Qwest
 fiber, Level3 via fastethernet via seperate fiber via seperate NOC). We
 provide service to 8 entire school districts (out of a possible 10 in
 our entire 25,000 square mile coverage area).
 /rant

 So, if I'm short sighted and you are not, why is my company 10x the size
 and making 10x the profit when both of us started at the same time?

 Travis
 Microserv

 Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
 
  - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 8:16 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering
 
 
  Why wouldn't you just put up your own AP's and service the same area
  rather than give that customer away to the competition?
 
  Spectrum congestion.
 
  Cashflow
 
  Speed.
 
  Expanded coverage, very quickly, for no money.
 
 
  I would spend $5k and put up my own tower before I turn a potential
  customer away to the competition. I've done it many times over the
  years and it has always paid off. Once one person is connected, they
  tell their neighbors about it. Pretty soon an AP that was put up for
  a single customer has 10 or 20 customers on it.
 
  Um, the competitors ALREADY have networks in place!
 
 
  Doesn't seem to make business sense to me. Plus when they need tech
  support, how do you troubleshoot the competitors AP's? How do you do
  RF link tests and packet loss tests at 10:00PM when the customer is
  on the phone?
 
  I call the competitor on his cell phone.  Just like he does with me.
 
  Your attidude, while pretty typical, is very short sighted.  The more
  we work together to keep the airways clean and maximize the
  investments, the better all of our networks run and the faster we can
  grow.
 
  It's that silly ol' Together we stand thing.
 
  I was watching a group of kids play Red Rover the other day.  I had to
  wonder how that game would turn out if the kids all tried to stand
  there and hold their OWN ground instead of working as a team.
 
 
  Travis
  Microserv
 
  Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
 
  - Original Message - From: George Rogato
  

Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC

2007-04-27 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

I didn't read it all, just scanned a bit and read some summaries, but
there's NOTHING GOOD in it for us.   Not much good in it for consumers,
either.

Basically, the FCC is gunning for the big bucks on the spectrum auction and
there's NO spectrum considered, as best I can tell, for use for small WISP
use.   Rather, it's regionally and market sized auctions for the most part,
and then something or other about cellular market auctions.   I dunno what
all those mean, but I can predict it's nothing I'll ever get to use.

Too bad.  The same financial and practical reasons that have slowed telco
and cablco broadband to the thinly populated areas will result in this just
being another overlay of services on top of places already served, and
unlikely to be any more cost effective than any other services now out
there, and likely less.





- Original Message - 
From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC


 Ug.

 Won't be reading THAT one anytime soon!
 marlon

 - Original Message - 
 From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:00 PM
 Subject: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC


  196 page decision
 
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.pdf
 
  SERVICE RULES FOR THE 698-746, 747-762, AND 777-792 MHZ BANDS, ET. AL.
  The Commission adopted rules governing wireless licenses in the 698-806
  MHz spectrum band, commonly referred to as the 700 MHz Band. (Dkt No.
  94-102, 96-86). Action by:  the Commission. Adopted:
  04/25/2007 by RO. (FCC No. 07-72).  PSHSB, WTB  , WTB
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.doc
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.doc
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.doc
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.doc
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.doc
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.doc
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.pdf
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.pdf
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.pdf
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.pdf
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.pdf
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.pdf
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A1.txt
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A2.txt
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A3.txt
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A4.txt
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A5.txt
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-72A6.txt
 
 
  -- 
  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] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread Mark Koskenmaki



- Original Message - 
From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?


 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Another two cents that may or may not be worth ANYTHING at all.

 Hi, Mark's sock puppet who writes like Tim May.


Oh, please... you guys are getting absurd.I have no sock puppets, and
while I am rather perturbed about the actions going on,  I have tried not to
be personal with anyone over the issues, and my best to not make it about
persons or personalities, but to try to argue about ideas and what WISPA
should do.  You may look with disdain upon the idea of having WISPA get down
and into the trenches of resisting excess regulation, but that's no reason
to start campaigns to personally villify ANYONE.

We should be able to disagree - me included - without insult or personal
affront, here.   I know, due to the emails I get, that a lot of readers on
this list are in considerable agreement on some point or other, but won't
say anything, because they don't want to be the targets of personal attacks.

Let's not let this degenerate.   Certainly, our reputations can be hurt far
more by ill advised personal sniping, while good open and serious debate can
do little but improve relations.



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval

2007-04-26 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Scott Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s
Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval


 Actually, the SBC is never an intentional radiator.  The added card is.
 As I read, and Tim says the same thing in a later post, we need the SBCs
 certified the same as laptops.  Certified as non-intentional radiators
 that accept intential radiators that are certified.

 Isn't that what the presented ruling says can happen?

I went back and read some stuff over again...

You can certify a module with either a permanently attached antenna, or one
with a unique connector to a transmitter module.   For instance, it
appears that if you built an AMP, for instance, that was AGC type with
limiting so that it put out constant power and sideband limitations, OOB
limitations, etc, regardless of input, you could certify it with any antenna
that lives within the FCC rules for eirp, etc.   Of course, the complexity
and cost of that would make it into why bother product.Its just that's
what it looks like can be done.

Yes, it appears you can certify a mini-pci card... with either a permanently
attached antenna, or with a unique connector.   Exactly how this unique
connector is enforced, I don't know.   Maybe someone has input on this.
It says that the rf shielding that provides compliance must be part of the
module,  and that the enclosure it's put within (or no enclosure) now makes
no difference.   Is this unique connector required to be just the
connection to the card?   Obviously they expect there to be a pigtail,
because this is meant to allow outside casing to be ... shall we say...
irrelevant to certification.   Do all connectors have to be uniqe, or just
the one to the transmitter module?

Now, as far as SBC's go, I know for a fact that Compex WP54's have passed
FCC certification,  because i have some assemblies from Compex that were
certified with a detachable antenna.   Thus, we know of at least one SBC
that should be easily put in use.

I guess maybe what we need is for Wistron, Ubiquiti, Compex... Maybe someone
who does routinely certify assemblies to submit a mini-pci and cpe type
antenna for approval under these rules.   Or, maybe someone who knows the
relevant decisionmakers to ask if we can.

Rules do now permit equivalent antenna swaps already, and I saw nothing to
prohibit this under these rules.  As for the base station / client issue
I recall some time back, that it was at least the intention of the FCC to
allow the client to use PTP eirp rules while the AP was requierd to remain
at the lower PTMP rules.

Anyone remember the ultimate outcome of those inquiries?





 Dawn DiPietro wrote:
  Scott,
 
  The SBC would not be a transmitter without the mPCI wireless card now
  would it. The SBC would be the host device.
 
  Regards,
  Dawn DiPietro
 
  Scott Reed wrote:
  Right, for the transmitter.  That is the mPCI card that goes in the
  laptop.  I am talking about the laptop itself.  Laptop = SBC = WRAP =
  RB = ???
 
  Dawn DiPietro wrote:
  Scott,
 
  In order for the system to be certified it must include the modular
  transmitter and the antenna. If you did not include these parts what
  would you be certifying exactly?
 
  As quoted from said document;
 
  The modular transmitter must comply with the antenna requirements of
  Section 15.203
  and 15.204(c). The antenna must either be permanently attached or
  employ a “unique”
  antenna coupler (at all connections between the module and the
  antenna, including the
  cable). Any antenna used with the module must be approved with the
  module, either at
  the time of initial authorization or through a Class II permissive
  change. The
  “professional installation” provision of Section 15.203 may not be
  applied to modules.
 
  Regards,
  Dawn DiPietro
 
 
  Scott Reed wrote:
  And look as I might, I have trouble find what antennae the card
  vendor is certified with.
 
  From other discussions, I would ask a couple of additional
  questions.  If we assume we can find a mPCI card that has WISP
  usable antennae in its certification then:
  1) Couldn't someone just get an RBxxx or WRAP or whatever SBC
  certified as a base unit and we could put the card in it?
  2) If an SBC is certified without an enclosure, is it still
  certified if it is in a box?
 
  Here is what I am thinking.  If we would get  an SBC certified bare
  as a base unit then we could use it with various cards in whatever
  enclosure we want to use.  The FCC seems to be interested in RF
  noise being emitted.  I don't think there are very many enclosures
  that increase the RF output, so if a bare SBC is certified, putting
  it in a box shouldn't negate the certification.  That would be like
  saying I can't put my laptop in a suitcase if the laptop is powered
  on.
 
  If this is the case, getting some 

Re: [WISPA] CALEA Costs-Shifting Relief

2007-04-26 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
I'm a bit confused, because I thougth the FCC specifically stated that there
is no longer any funds, nor are any applications under those sections
accepted anymore.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.pdf

Relevant paragraph:

2. More generally, we herein specify mechanisms to ensure that
telecommunications

carriers comply with CALEA. Specifically, under the express terms of the
statute, all carriers subject to

CALEA are obliged to become CALEA-compliant. We find that sections 107(c)
and 109(b) of CALEA

provide only limited and temporary relief from compliance requirements, and
that they are

complementary provisions that serve different purposes, which are,
respectively: (1) extension of the

CALEA section 103 compliance deadline for equipment, facility, or service
deployed before October 25,

1998; and (2) recovery of CALEA-imposed costs.







- Original Message - 
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Costs-Shifting Relief


 Peter,

 Thank you for posting this information. Since there is a $5000
 application fee and that the provider has to prove that they have tried
 to comply I doubt the providers that scream the loudest will even take
 this information seriously and discount it like everything else we have
 heard about recently. I have heard on other lists that it is very
 difficult to get anything to come of this but as you know the
 misinformation flies rampantly these days. :-)

 Regards,
 Dawn DiPietro


 Peter R. wrote:
  *Section 109(b)(1) Petitions for Cost-Shifting Relief*
 
  CALEA section 109(b) permits a “telecommunications carrier,” as that
  term is defined by CALEA, to file a petition with the FCC and an
  application with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to request that DOJ
  pay the costs of the carrier’s CALEA compliance (cost-shifting relief)
  with respect to any equipment, facility or service installed or
  deployed after January 1, 1995. First, the carrier must file a section
  109(b)(1) petition with the FCC and prove that, based on one or more
  of the criteria set forth in section 109(b)(1)(A)-(K), implementation
  of at least one particular solution that would comply with a
  particular CALEA section 103 capability requirement is not “reasonably
  achievable.” Second, if the Commission grants a section 109(b)(1)
  petition, the carrier must then apply to DOJ, pursuant to section
  109(b)(2), to pay the reasonable costs of compliance for one of the
  solutions proposed in the section 109(b)(1) petition. DOJ may then
  either pay the reasonable costs of compliance or deny the application.
 
  If DOJ denies the section 109(b)(2) application, then the carrier is
  deemed to be CALEA compliant for the facilities, networks, and
  services (facilities) described in the section 109(b)(1) petition
  until those facilities are replaced, significantly upgraded or
  otherwise undergo a major modification. When those facilities are
  replaced, significantly upgraded or otherwise undergo a major
  modification, the carrier is obligated under the law to become CALEA
  compliant. The FCC may also specify in its CALEA section 109(b)(1)
  order granting a carrier’s petition the specific date when the
  replacement, upgrade or modification will occur and when CALEA
  compliance is required. Thus, a carrier’s obligation to comply with
  all CALEA requirements is only deferred when (1) the FCC grants a
  section 109(b)(1) petition, and (2) DOJ declines to pay the additional
  reasonable costs to comply with one or more of the CALEA requirements.
  No qualifying carrier is exempt from CALEA.
 
  Section 109(b)(1) petitions must be adequately supported, and the FCC
  decides whether to grant the petition strictly in reference to
  criteria set out in section 109(b)(1). Accordingly, carriers are
  encouraged to consult with competent legal and technical counsel
  before filing such a petition. Please note that a filing fee of
  $5,000.00 is required to accompany all CALEA section 109(b)(1)
  petitions filed with the FCC. See Appendix E entitled “Section
  109(b)(1) Petitions for Cost-Shifting Relief: Filing Instructions,”
  and paragraphs 38-57 of the CALEA Second Report and Order
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.pdf
  for detailed filing instructions and further explanation of the scope
  of relief, and its limitations, available under section 109(b).
 
  More at the bottom of this page: http://www.fcc.gov/calea/

 -- 
 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] CALEA Costs-Shifting Relief

2007-04-26 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Costs-Shifting Relief


 On one of the documents that I've rad that maybe is not that public,
 they have taken into consideration that some isp's can not afford to
 impliment calea and they have a solution for that.

Yes, you get to submit to them ALL of your financial data, including your
ability to borrow, and all state and federal money avaialble...

Ohhh...and the fee for filing that you can't afford to comply is $5200, and
they'll decide whether or not you can afford it...   but you still pay the
fee either way.








 Dawn DiPietro wrote:
  Peter,
 
  Thank you for posting this information. Since there is a $5000
  application fee and that the provider has to prove that they have tried
  to comply I doubt the providers that scream the loudest will even take
  this information seriously and discount it like everything else we have
  heard about recently. I have heard on other lists that it is very
  difficult to get anything to come of this but as you know the
  misinformation flies rampantly these days. :-)
 
  Regards,
  Dawn DiPietro
 
 
  Peter R. wrote:
  *Section 109(b)(1) Petitions for Cost-Shifting Relief*
 
  CALEA section 109(b) permits a “telecommunications carrier,” as that
  term is defined by CALEA, to file a petition with the FCC and an
  application with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to request that DOJ
  pay the costs of the carrier’s CALEA compliance (cost-shifting relief)
  with respect to any equipment, facility or service installed or
  deployed after January 1, 1995. First, the carrier must file a section
  109(b)(1) petition with the FCC and prove that, based on one or more
  of the criteria set forth in section 109(b)(1)(A)-(K), implementation
  of at least one particular solution that would comply with a
  particular CALEA section 103 capability requirement is not “reasonably
  achievable.” Second, if the Commission grants a section 109(b)(1)
  petition, the carrier must then apply to DOJ, pursuant to section
  109(b)(2), to pay the reasonable costs of compliance for one of the
  solutions proposed in the section 109(b)(1) petition. DOJ may then
  either pay the reasonable costs of compliance or deny the application.
 
  If DOJ denies the section 109(b)(2) application, then the carrier is
  deemed to be CALEA compliant for the facilities, networks, and
  services (facilities) described in the section 109(b)(1) petition
  until those facilities are replaced, significantly upgraded or
  otherwise undergo a major modification. When those facilities are
  replaced, significantly upgraded or otherwise undergo a major
  modification, the carrier is obligated under the law to become CALEA
  compliant. The FCC may also specify in its CALEA section 109(b)(1)
  order granting a carrier’s petition the specific date when the
  replacement, upgrade or modification will occur and when CALEA
  compliance is required. Thus, a carrier’s obligation to comply with
  all CALEA requirements is only deferred when (1) the FCC grants a
  section 109(b)(1) petition, and (2) DOJ declines to pay the additional
  reasonable costs to comply with one or more of the CALEA requirements.
  No qualifying carrier is exempt from CALEA.
 
  Section 109(b)(1) petitions must be adequately supported, and the FCC
  decides whether to grant the petition strictly in reference to
  criteria set out in section 109(b)(1). Accordingly, carriers are
  encouraged to consult with competent legal and technical counsel
  before filing such a petition. Please note that a filing fee of
  $5,000.00 is required to accompany all CALEA section 109(b)(1)
  petitions filed with the FCC. See Appendix E entitled “Section
  109(b)(1) Petitions for Cost-Shifting Relief: Filing Instructions,”
  and paragraphs 38-57 of the CALEA Second Report and Order
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.pdf
  for detailed filing instructions and further explanation of the scope
  of relief, and its limitations, available under section 109(b).
 
  More at the bottom of this page: http://www.fcc.gov/calea/
 

 -- 
 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] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
I think Steve's point was to contrast Patrick Henry's determination with
some people's attitude that resistance is futile.

Frankly, I think EVERY WISP should file that they are NOT compliant and have
no prospect of being.   The FCC would simply be snowed under attempting to
deal with HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS of individual cases and would end up having
to make some kind of change in the way they do business.

I don't know how many people work there, but for them to adequately deal
with 500, 1000, or even 10,000 cannot comply filings, well, I KNOW they
can't.This would force changes in the way they expect to deal with such
a diverse and LARGE group.They're used to regulating industries with a
handful of players.  For them to take on regulating an industry with more
operators than telephone companies, radio stations, and cell phone operators
combined is a challenge far beyond what I think they had any inkling they
would be required to do.




- Original Message - 
From: Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?


 On 4/26/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Jeromie Reeves wrote:
   On 4/19/07, Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   as Patrick Henry once said
  
   Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
  
  
   Who is Patrick Henry??
  
 
  Didn't Patrick Henry say Give me liberty or give me death?


 Yes he did. Your chopping off my sarcasm tag misrepresents my words.
 The quote in my email was also by Patrick Henry. Steve attributed
 Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. to Mr. Henry but I do
 not remember him ever saying it (course I was a bit young  back in the
 1700's and my memory is not what it once was.).
 -- 
 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] Was lemmings... now What is WISPA?

2007-04-26 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
 major players.
When you read through everything, you find out that they're being very very
flexible right now, since they're not even able to figure out how to apply
telco terms and law to packet based networks.   But they still reserve the
right to impose their own definitions of  a huge array of terms, and just
those redefinitions could be HUGE obstacles to some of us.

SOME of you actually like the idea of having only big players, but if that's
what happens, then the only people in the wireless business will be the big
boys and all the rest will be dead and off flipping burgers or whatever it
is we can do.



- Original Message - 
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?


 Mark,

 At this point you are beating a dead horse. We know how you feel about
 the government and following the laws put in place for your protection.
 But to be honest with you this is getting old.
 We need to change the focus of this conversation on how to comply with
 these rules not how much we should disregard them. I doubt civil
 disobedience will work in this case not with the small
 number of WISP's we are talking about here. If this type of discussion
 keeps this up the FCC could just regulate the WISP industry out of
 existence. I doubt that is what your end goal is.

 Regards,
 Dawn DiPietro


 Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
  I think Steve's point was to contrast Patrick Henry's determination with
  some people's attitude that resistance is futile.
 
  Frankly, I think EVERY WISP should file that they are NOT compliant and
have
  no prospect of being.   The FCC would simply be snowed under attempting
to
  deal with HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS of individual cases and would end up
having
  to make some kind of change in the way they do business.
 
  I don't know how many people work there, but for them to adequately deal
  with 500, 1000, or even 10,000 cannot comply filings, well, I KNOW
they
  can't.This would force changes in the way they expect to deal with
such
  a diverse and LARGE group.They're used to regulating industries with
a
  handful of players.  For them to take on regulating an industry with
more
  operators than telephone companies, radio stations, and cell phone
operators
  combined is a challenge far beyond what I think they had any inkling
they
  would be required to do.
 
 
 
 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:15 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?
 
 
 
  On 4/26/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Jeromie Reeves wrote:
 
  On 4/19/07, Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  as Patrick Henry once said
 
  Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
 
 
  Who is Patrick Henry??
 
 
  Didn't Patrick Henry say Give me liberty or give me death?
 
  Yes he did. Your chopping off my sarcasm tag misrepresents my words.
  The quote in my email was also by Patrick Henry. Steve attributed
  Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. to Mr. Henry but I do
  not remember him ever saying it (course I was a bit young  back in the
  1700's and my memory is not what it once was.).
  -- 
  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] WISP Peering

2007-04-26 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
At one time, a local operator here in the valley tried to set this up, not
with BGP and classic peering, but simple static routing to route just that
ISP's clients traffic to them.Thus, traffic bound for each other went
through a dedicated pipe.   of course, this was simple and cheap, back when
everyone was connected via frame relay and adding a PVC wasn't expensive or
difficult.

It would be slightly more complex for WISP's to do this, but for some, it
might save a bit of bandwidth through the provider.

I don't really think there's all that much in terms of percentage, of
traffic from residential or even SOHO customes to other residential / soho
customers, so I don't see much value in that.

instead, it might seem a bit more... useful?... to instead do classic
peering with each other, all at a fixed per-gig transfer or per KByte flow
charge for traffic.   If we both have a lot of traffic, but it's equal to me
from you and to you from me, then the charges cancel each other.It would
also be a means of adding redundancy to your own network, and decreased
downtime, better paths (lower hop counts).




- Original Message - 
From: Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering


 You would classically arrange a peering agreement. You hand each other
 a equal amount of capacity (say 1mbit) and a BGP table. You each use
 the link like another upstream provider, balancing routes vs capacity
 vs (what ever else you want). Some peerages have a set cost per bit
 transfered and the groups settle up monthly. The main problem I see is
 one entity will be at a disadvantage then the other due to size. Say
 isp A has 2 peers, the other has 4. That means isp B will need isp
 A's links less then B needs A's. There is a very (in)famous case of
 exactly that (AOL and Cogent). How do you value your peering abilities
 vs those of someone else, with more or less peers and more or less
 capacity.


 On 4/26/07, Jory Privett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I have two PoPs where I have bandwidth for my network.  In the  same
area I
  know of at least 4 other WISPs that have bandwidth also.  I was just
wanting
  to establish a link to one or more of them and start routing (BGP most
  likely) and pass traffic over each others network.  This would allow
each to
  have more capacity and redundancy and not have to pay any large amount
for
  it.  I know all of the big players do it and it is the basic fabric the
  internet is made of.  I was just wondering if any WISPs do it and how?
 
  Jory Privett
  WCCS
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:48 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering
 
 
   Jory,
  
   I am not sure what you are trying to do with the other WISP's in your
   area. Can you a little more clear on what you are thinking of?
  
   Regards,
   Dawn DiPietro
  
   Jory Privett wrote:
   There are several WISP in my area I was  wanting to talk to some of
them
   about bandwidth peering.  I know that most will not want anything to
do
   with it since they refuse to co-operate in any other way but I wanted
to
   make the effort.  Has anyone else done this type of thing?  What
   paperwork needs to be done to protect each company? How do you
control
   throughput to and from each network and routing issues?  Any help her
   would be greatly appreciated.
  
   Jory Privett
   WCCS
  
  
   --
   WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
  
   Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
   http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
  
   Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
  
 
  --
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Lemmings - suggestions

2007-04-26 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Lemmings - suggestions


 Mr. Hush,

 Excellent plan.  What agenda item will you be working on first?

 SUGGESTIONS of what to do:
 1) Inform the AP / UPI that as an industry group, we have decided
 to stage a cyclic disconnect from public Inet in protest.

 Any volunteers to write and distribute this Press Release?

Nobody can write for WISPA except WISPA people, either authorized or
designated by management.


 2) As a group, inform the subs what we are doing so they are not in
 the dark and clueless. Try to recruit their support.

 Tell your customers that they are no longer getting Internet?

Naw, write a letter to your subs.

Dear customer,  I started delivering affordable broadband several years
ago, in a free and open environment, where the services I offer were not
restricted nor taxed, nor controlled by any state or federal regulatory
agency.   Recently, the FCC has reversed this trend, and has mandated that I
provide the ability to tap and deeply examine, and then provide requested
information from the traffic that travels to your home / office / computer /
etc.   The costs of this are as yet unknown, and my ability to provide you
affordable broadband is in serious jeopardy.   While assisting law
enforcement's legitemate need to track down criminal, criminal activity, and
other hazards to our community and / or nation is not objectionable to us,
and we in fact wish to help where we can,  the FCC has decided that
providers will bear the costs of compliance with as yet undetermined
requirements.   This mandate upon my business could very well put me out of
business with no notice whatsoever, and leave you without service
unexpectedly.

I would encourage you to read the FCC's comments and rules at www.fcc.gov
and to contact your representatives at the federal level and the FCC to ask
why your internet service must be placed under the control of the federal
government, putting your ability to get affordable broadband at risk.
There are some options, one is to simply duck the law, and hope enforcment
never catches us.   Another is just to pre-emptively shut down and find
other means of earning a living, but losing all my investment, time, and the
jobs my business creates.  Yet another option is to estimate the cost of
compliance and assess you a one time fee for capital expenditures, since we
lack the ready capital to buy the very expensive solutions currently in
existence, or to finance this with a permanent CALEA surcharge on top of our
normal service charges.These fees could range from $50 to $500 dollars
one time, or $5 to $15 per month for continuing compliance costs.

The federal government long ago used your tax dollars to pay for the the
telephone companies to be compliant with CALEA, but since WISP's are small
business, we have no multi-million dollar lobbyist industry in Washington DC
to protect us from arbitrary mandates and regulations.

This pattern of regulation and usurping the ability of small business to
provide necessary services is a benefit to the large corporate entities like
telephone companies and cable companies who, if small businesses like us are
force into non-competitive price structures or just out of business, will
have no competition, allowing prices for internet to spiral out of control.


 3) Present to the press the WISPA member total subs count, and ask
 for the FCC / Gov to really evaluate the economic impact to GDP per
 state / national level that shutting off wisps would result in.

 No one knows this number, but you can take the count from the 477 forms.
 It was about 2% right?

Ahh, we're dead anyway.  Might as well call it 0%, right?


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
Here, read this.  it's old, but it's EFF's take on CALEA.

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/CALEA/

If you take the time and read this through (it's HOURS)

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.pdf

You'll notice that the FCC readily admits it cannot resolve the technical
conflicts between law written for POTS interception and digital packet
network monitoring.

It is expecting that precedent and our willingness to just throw up our
hands and let them have it will eventually settle those conflicts for it,
so it will not have to defend the almost incomprehensible dichotomy of POTS
telephone taps and internet data interception.




- Original Message - 
From: Mark McElvy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:10 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?


 I may not agree with everything Mark is saying, but CALEA is more about
 Gov't control and convenience than our protection. Running a small
 business is hard enough without being regulated into oblivion.

 Mark McElvy

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?

2007-04-26 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?


 Mark,

 So this means you thumb your nose at the FCC when they put regulations
 into place?

No, it means I thumb my nose at them when they come along and tell me I have
do something for them...for free.


 The FCC is not in place to make life easy for you it is there to protect
 the airwaves from being polluted from every guy that knows something
 about wireless and slapping computers together.

Wrong.  It is there to properly regulate the use of a public commodity
(spectrum) for the best service to the public.

 Sorry if this sounds a little crude but with all the discussion lately
 the attitude seems to be make it easy for me so I can be a player and
 handicap the competition. This does not make it an even
 playing field in any way shape or form. The Telcos/Cableco's have to be
 compliant as does the little guy.

They can go whine all the want.

I'm sticking up for me.  Wrong is wrong is wrong, no matter who else gets
wronged.




 Regards,
 Dawn DiPietro

 Mark McElvy wrote:
  I may not agree with everything Mark is saying, but CALEA is more about
  Gov't control and convenience than our protection. Running a small
  business is hard enough without being regulated into oblivion.
 
  Mark McElvy
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
  Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:44 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?
 
  Mark,
 
  At this point you are beating a dead horse. We know how you feel about
  the government and following the laws put in place for your protection.
  But to be honest with you this is getting old.
  We need to change the focus of this conversation on how to comply with
  these rules not how much we should disregard them. I doubt civil
  disobedience will work in this case not with the small
  number of WISP's we are talking about here. If this type of discussion
  keeps this up the FCC could just regulate the WISP industry out of
  existence. I doubt that is what your end goal is.
 
  Regards,
  Dawn DiPietro
 
 

 -- 
 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] Was lemmings... now What is WISPA?

2007-04-26 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Was lemmings... now What is WISPA?


 Mark,

 Justify it anyway you like. Civil disobedience is not a viable solution.
 I don't see a large number of people stepping up to the plate and
 defending your position.

Who said to be 'civil disobedient'?   THAT is what's going on with thousands
now.  I'm suggesting that we recruit those hundreds...errr..thousands to
file and say that they cannot comply.   This is not civil disobedience, this
is changing the POV of people who made bad policy.

They can't possibly undertake the task of taking down thousands of tiny
networks, which is what would change policies and possibly get pretty much
all of us exempted or changed to some non-mandated terms.

Oh, WISPA can just toss them to the wolves and lose absolutely ANY chance of
getting them into membership and support.These people ask what's the
value in being a member... and if all WISPA's going to do is toss them
under the bus, you might as well write off the vast majority of smaller
network operators from EVER supporting WISPA in any meaningful fashion.
Talk about chopping off your nose to spite your face...

Cripes... I've been trying to argue that WISPA is throwing away a HUGE
opportunity by not defending the industry as a whole, and is, in effect,
alienating the very people it needs to become a much more effective
organization.  There are NOT thousands of big, profitable WISP's.   There
ARE thousands of  tiny network operators, community networks, neighborhood
networks, and other small ventures that simply cannot go it alone and be
compliant, but if we could give them a reason... if we ACTUALLY fought for
them,  then we might create a reason they'd support us.   Instead, all we
see is intangible promises of 'we'll do what we can' and we can't resist so
shut up and go die quietly.

Read that document from the FCC again, there's HUGE areas of required
compliance that have NOT EVEN BEEN MENTIONED by anything to come from WISPA
nor anyone else I've seen, and we have 3 weeks to somehow bridge this gulf,
educate everyone, and try some give and take with the regulators.

In other words...




 Regards,
 Dawn DiPietro

 Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
  Wow.  I guess the title really is right.
 
  When I participated in the debates about who was a WISP, and who could
join
  WISPA, we were very broad, and included community networks,  free
networks,
  big and small operators.. including the guy who is just a hobby type
  network operator, but provides connection to his small town, community,
  neighborhood, or even just block.
 
  Now we've decided that the only people who count are the  big guys.
The
  professionals?  A few hundred?I know that lots of people didn't
file
  477 so that they could hide when the next thing came out... And it was
no
  time at all.   What will happen when the next mandate comes?   Will you
  start referencing the scores of WISP's?   After the next one will it
be
  the dozens?
 
  Marlon thinks there's 10,000 of us.
 
  I think there's 20K of us, including all the wide array of informal,
hobby,
  free, or otherwise not set up an advertised for profit ISP.   So, we
just
  toss all them to the wolves to feed on first, before they get to us?
You
  KNOW that the vast majority of these things are theoretically covered by
  CALEA, but will never file a single thing, won't have any ability to
assist
  law enforcement, and will continue operating under the radar, possibly
  getting destroyed one by one as circumstances bring them to light.
 
  So, you think that the FCC is going OUTLAW delivering internet via
wireless
  because we discuss tactics about how to get them to face reality?   I
don't
  advocate lying to anyone.  If you can, by george, file you can.  But for
the
  rest of us..  File you can't.   And I'd encourage EVERY ONE OF THOSE
15-20K
  network operators to do the same.   Create the logjam that teaches
  regulators when they've done wrong.   This is the most basic tenet of
  democracy I can think of.   There is no holiness to the government or
to
  law they write. It does not come from God to them to us.All are
subject
  to negotiation and resistance by the governed.
 
  I WILL DO JUST THAT, because I can't without changing my network.   But,
  I'll just be offering my farewell email to the list soon UNLESS we
stick
  together, and unless WISPA and everyone else starts telling them to back
off
  and that the vast majority of operators actually cannot reasonably
comply.
  As far as I can tell, the only informal WISPA communication was that we
can!
 
  And if they shut me down... what will WISPA's stance be?   oh, he was a
  renegade?   That looks like what you all want to do.  AT least the
public
  list won't be cluttered with noise about trying to save the WISP
industry
  from exinction.Sheesh.   Who cares about

Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval

2007-04-25 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
I read that just about all the way through.  It appears we can now certify a
mini-pci radio with some specific gain antennas, and use it in any control
board.   There seems to be some requirement that we demonstrate the software
can't or doesn't cause the module to operate outside of certified
parameters.

The equivalent antenna rules should be helpful here, too.

Can someone who communicates with the appropriate people at the FCC get some
clarification about certifying gain differences between the PTP antennas and
PTMP base station?




- Original Message - 
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:36 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules
for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval


 All,

 I just received this document and thought it might be of some interest
 to the list.
 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-56A1.pdf

 Regards,
 Dawn DiPietro
 -- 
 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] Open Meeting on 700 MHz

2007-04-25 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz


 John,

 Regarding your comment:

 Enabling thousands of new bustling and growing
 entrepreneurs to build local wireless communication broadband companies
 is the smartest thing they could do which is why they will not do it.


 Yes, creating and supporting new entrepreneurs is what government
 should do but our government has become corrupted (there, I did it...
 I uttered the C word) by the big money from large, entrenched,
 politically-connected corporations. By providing large political
 campaign contributions and gifts (like trips on corporate jets) large
 corporations now control how new laws are written and how existing laws
 are enforced. It should be no surprise that new laws are written to
 benefit large corporations.

But Jack, this is problem is more than 200 years old in the US. In fact,
people with money have been influencing government for... well, as long as
there has been money and governments.


 Back when I was a child (in the 50's) I was taught and I believed that
 the job of government was to do the greatest good for the greatest
 number of people. Today, that's changed. Now, it's my impression that
 our government writes laws to benefit those who contribute the most
 money to political parties. In the last few years, there are examples of
 bills that were actually written directly by large,
 politically-connected corporations, delivered to Congress, voted on and
 passed into law. Because laws written today fail to benefit the majority
 of the people, our real economy is going downhill.

Our economy has thrived IN SPITE OF GOVERNMENT for as long as our nation has
existed.  It has and always be so.   There are many things that could be
done to limit the damage, but few of us ever support those things.


 Our government prints billions of new dollars each month (millions of
 dollars each day) but these dollars are not being circulated in our
 real-world, local-businesses economy. These dollars are circulated on
 Wall Street. These dollars are circulated between our government and
 large corporations. These dollars are circulated between foreign central
 banks in countries outside the U.S.

 Now that I've framed the problem (political corruption), I have an
 obligation to do more than just complain. I have an obligation to
 outline the solution. The solution is to take the money out of politics.
 Allow all candidates to campaign with an small but equal amount of
 public money (our money). Remember, the job of politicians is to write
 the laws that govern our country. By taking the large-corporation money
 out of politics, politicians will be reminded each day who they are
 supposed to be working for... they're supposed to be working for us.

No, Jack, this only gaurantees that the famous, the incumbents... these will
get elected and re-elected.   All this does is limit the power of those NOT
in power to speak to the people.   Every time someone tries to limit this,
it further calcifies the power in place and people already into power.

Money is not the problem.   The problem is that we have allowed goverment to
do everything for us, and we don't insist it stop.   Poll this list, and
you'll find a lot of people want the government to take over EVEN MORE parts
of our economy than they have already.  Health care being one.   Gee, we
whine and moan that government is intrenched into everything and plays
favorites with those who give it money, and then we start talking about
giving it EVEN MORE control and power.

If money is EVER the problem... It's that the government has too much
already.   It has so much it can and does use it to pry into and then thinks
it can solve with it's money, every so-called problem, be it people
unwilling to budget their money to pay the doctor, or whiny snobs who snivel
about how slow the public adopts broadband.   And the FCC's motivation to
rake in the money is why spectrum is so terribly badly allocated.  And as
soon as government sets itself in charge of something... then EVERYONE is at
ther door trying to find ways to get the government to direct favor in their
way.

The question is:  Where does this leave us?   My God, do I have to sound
like a broken record?   We need to have been telling the FCC that
impediments to entry into the wireless broadband business are wrong.   Be
they CALEA mandates,  spectrum auction stupidness, or regulations concerning
the use of public land.   We HAVE to be the broken record... the squeaky
wheel...  We haven't money or huge numbers... but we can be LOUD.   And we
should be consistent, with the message that THIS TIME, economies of scale
are not the salvation for reaching the people, but DIVERSITY, that is, a
dynamic industry filled with everything from mom-and-pop garage based
sharing schemes to bit multi-state operators is THE 

Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz

2007-04-25 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz



 Before I start sounding like Mark, I need to state that I believe
government plays an important helpful (even

Ok, now that I stopped snickering...  Rich, we're not that far apart... but
the difference between is, is that I'm willing to argue what we all know,
but often just don't really want to address.   That being the obvious
outcomes vs the ideal we want.

vital) role to promote US industries and provide the best services for the
US people.  I just think they're doing a bad job in this regard.  I
fervently believe that regulatory anarchy is the worst thing for us all
collectively when it comes to signals that can travel long distances.
There's no excuse for lack of regulation which can destroy the utility of
our spectrum which can all go the way of CB.  There's a terrible need for
active FCC watch-dogs to weigh-in to counteract the impact of paid
lobbyists.  Of course, the major industries have a voice that's orders of
magnitude louder.  But that's the way it's always been.

That's the nature of government for you.

The nature has certain observable qualities, and I address those here.
That's why I state things like government being lethal.   That's its nature,
that's just how things are.   You people keep confusing that with the notion
of promoting anarchy, which I am not.As someone once said eternal
vigilance is the price we must pay as a democratic type society to get and
keep liberty - and that could be defined as having a reasonably just and
responsible government.   Eternal Vigilance can be defined, when it comes
to WISP's, as standing up for or against everything that impacts our
business, our services, or our ability to do either.

It is the very nature of government and the  governed to be adversarial.   I
know many of you think that's some kind of politics, but it's not partisan.
It's just the nature of the beast, as they say.  Anyone who thinks that we
must give up something, does nothing but offer payment for empty air.
Unless we are EVER defensive, eternally vigilant,  we WILL get trod into
oblivion.   That doesn't take bad people, or ANY hostility on the part of
the regulators toward us, that's just the consequences of the motions of the
1500 pound gorilla attempting to walk around the anthills.

If we have good enough things to say, and ones that give the regulators the
ability to say good things about what they do, then we needed play 'quid pro
quo which is just a nice way of saying shady dealings which we all
despise.   Most of them would rather have something good to say and do
something good... It's easier, but until or unless we give them that
ammunition, INTACT, it's not going to happen.



 Rich
   - Original Message - 
   From: Jack Unger
   To: WISPA General List
   Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:17 AM
   Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz


   John,

   Regarding your comment:

   Enabling thousands of new bustling and growing
   entrepreneurs to build local wireless communication broadband companies
   is the smartest thing they could do which is why they will not do it.


   Yes, creating and supporting new entrepreneurs is what government
   should do but our government has become corrupted (there, I did it...
   I uttered the C word) by the big money from large, entrenched,
   politically-connected corporations. By providing large political
   campaign contributions and gifts (like trips on corporate jets) large
   corporations now control how new laws are written and how existing laws
   are enforced. It should be no surprise that new laws are written to
   benefit large corporations.

   Back when I was a child (in the 50's) I was taught and I believed that
   the job of government was to do the greatest good for the greatest
   number of people. Today, that's changed. Now, it's my impression that
   our government writes laws to benefit those who contribute the most
   money to political parties. In the last few years, there are examples of
   bills that were actually written directly by large,
   politically-connected corporations, delivered to Congress, voted on and
   passed into law. Because laws written today fail to benefit the majority
   of the people, our real economy is going downhill.

   Our government prints billions of new dollars each month (millions of
   dollars each day) but these dollars are not being circulated in our
   real-world, local-businesses economy. These dollars are circulated on
   Wall Street. These dollars are circulated between our government and
   large corporations. These dollars are circulated between foreign central
   banks in countries outside the U.S.

   Now that I've framed the problem (political corruption), I have an
   obligation to do more than just complain. I have an obligation to
   outline the 

Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz

2007-04-25 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:15 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz


 Jack,

 I do however agree that our elected officials do not control the country
 anymore.  The large enabled Corporations guide policy as they see fit.
This
 allows these corporations to get even bigger and there grasp on policy
even
 stronger.  The US is quickly becoming a monopolistic society in my eyes
and
 twenty years from now our children are going to wonder just how ignorant
 their parents were for allowing this to happen.

And someone here called ** me **  a conspiratorial kook...



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz

2007-04-25 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz


 
  Our economy has thrived IN SPITE OF GOVERNMENT for as long as our nation
  has
  existed.  It has and always be so.   There are many things that could be
  done to limit the damage, but few of us ever support those things.

 Here's where we disagree.  Wireless policy cannot be anarchistic (my term
 ... you always use the terms free market) as you advocate.  For
industries

But we don't disagree... Much.  You're mistaking what I'm saying, because
you're attempting to read between the lines what isn't there.   We don't
need to argue this, and this isn't the place for it.  But the argument
displaces good conversation, which is why I want to address it.


 where what I choose to do doesn't impact your choices, no problem.
 Wireless DOES NOT FIT in this class (many other industries don't fit as
 well, completely unrelated to wireless).  Your FREEDOM impacts MY choices.

I'm not sure why you think that objecting to badly applied and wrongly
written regulation impacts your choices.

 Government policy MUST regulate wireless industries for the public good.

Not really.   It has taken upon itself, for better or for worse ( that's not
even the point of the argument, so let's not get bogged in it) the task of
regulating radio spectrum.   That doesn't mean it has to regulate the
industry... Just the use of the spectrum for the best outcome it can figure
out how to do.

 Study some history of various industries (not restricted to just wireless)
 and you will find that lack of government guidance / or bad government
 guidance (read: lack of vitally needed regulation) hurts everyone.  We've

Could you provide a few examples?   I can't think of any.   I know we have
anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws, but those are just protections of free
markets, not regulation of industries.

 had previous threads where we respectfully disagree on this.  You see free
 market as the best for everyone, and I know how painfully untrue this
often
 is.  Do you really truly believe that everyone always benefits from your
 having no restriction whatsoever on what you choose to do?  I respect
your

yes.  Absolutely.

 opinions immensely but I just can't help believe that deep down you know
 from your own career experiences that this has never really been true
under
 all circumstances.  But then again, a lot of people in Wash/Ore apparently
 seem willing to believe this fantasy.

huh?  I live in the socialist state of Oregon, where dang near everyone
wants the nanny state, and believes in centralized control of every damn
thing.


 
 
  Our government prints billions of new dollars each month (millions of
  dollars each day) but these dollars are not being circulated in our
  real-world, local-businesses economy. These dollars are circulated on
  Wall Street. These dollars are circulated between our government and
  large corporations. These dollars are circulated between foreign
central
  banks in countries outside the U.S.
 
  Now that I've framed the problem (political corruption), I have an
  obligation to do more than just complain. I have an obligation to
  outline the solution. The solution is to take the money out of
politics.
  Allow all candidates to campaign with an small but equal amount of
  public money (our money). Remember, the job of politicians is to write
  the laws that govern our country. By taking the large-corporation money
  out of politics, politicians will be reminded each day who they are
  supposed to be working for... they're supposed to be working for us.
 
  No, Jack, this only gaurantees that the famous, the incumbents... these
  will
  get elected and re-elected.   All this does is limit the power of those
  NOT
  in power to speak to the people.   Every time someone tries to limit
this,
  it further calcifies the power in place and people already into power.
 
  Money is not the problem.   The problem is that we have allowed
goverment
  to
  do everything for us, and we don't insist it stop.   Poll this list, and
  you'll find a lot of people want the government to take over EVEN MORE
  parts
  of our economy than they have already.  Health care being one.   Gee, we
  whine and moan that government is intrenched into everything and plays
  favorites with those who give it money, and then we start talking about
  giving it EVEN MORE control and power.

 Government is not the source and stem of all evil.  Thinking in
competitive
 free market terms, we have a fairly good government compared to most which
 are much worse.  That doesn't make it the perfect, and money/power is the
 evil.  I agree with Jack on this.  Money/power/influence are the things
that
 make government act against the best interests of the country ... it's not
 government itself that's the source of evil.

Huh...   I guess I can only state this in 

Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval

2007-04-25 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s
Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval


 Tim,

 I read the 2nd Report and Order and I don't see where it is saying that
 a certified mini PCI radio can be put into any base unit.


did you read?  Come on Jack... Here's paragraph three of the background
section:

3. In recent years, manufacturers have developed Part 15 transmitter modules
(or “single”

modules) that can be incorporated into many different devices. These modules
generally consist of a

completely self-contained radio-frequency transmitter (transmission system)
missing only an input signal

source and a power source to make it functional. Once the modules are
authorized by the Commission

under its certification procedure, they may be incorporated into a number of
host devices such as personal

computers (PCs) or personal digital assistants (PDAs), which have been
separately authorized.2 The

completed product generally is not subject to requirements for further
certification by the Commission.

Therefore, modular transmitters save manufacturers the time and any related
expenses that would be

incurred if a new equipment authorization were needed for the same
transmitter when it is installed in a

new device.

_


I dunno about you, but if that  does not address mini-pci modules on a
single board computer, I dunno what would.   That's about as clear and
specific as they could get!   They CLEARLY are talking about rf network
devices.

It takes no imagination whatsoever to very effectively create mini-pci cards
and certify them under these rules.   They even state that the 'enclosure'
no longer matters, nor does the device the module is connected to, unless
it can make the device operate out of bounds.The software, if it uses
the drivers from the manufacturer, or elements of the manufacturer's
software, that are approved as far as SDR's go, for TPC and DFS,  then yes,
it obviously complies with this, because those are certified by the chipset
manufacturers.

And further, they went on to state that this can be applied to a wide array
of rf devices... and they address various types of modulation, frequencies,
blah blah.   We're talking part-15 based networking devices, they're talking
walkie talkies, they're talking about a huge array of devices.

I see it as sea change, and take that from the language they use.

The requirements are:  self contained shielding so it's not dependent on
enclosure for unintentional radiation control,  has its own power control,
can be certified separately from the rest of the device.   The worst that
can happen, is that we submit a mini-pci and antenna combination for
certification and it gets rejected, but it appears to me we CAN certify it.
As far as the unique connector rule, I don't know how this is interpreted,
but every laptop and mini-pci put in it now has the same connector.






-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval

2007-04-25 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s
Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval


 

 Yes, we still need to submit a wireless card, case, power supply,
 software, and range of antennas to be certified as a system .

No, this change means that the CASE, POWER SUPPLY, and associated other
hardware that generates the input signal  does not need to be certified to
build a certified product.

This the exact change we need to be able build our own equipment.   The
motherboard and case are no longer required to build and keep the system
compliant and certified.   Just the module itself, with chosen antennae.




 jack


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


 -- 
 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] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval

2007-04-25 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
But Jack, they don't have to.   Anyone can.


- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s
Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval


 Scott,

 I believe that your comments are substantially correct.

 The main problem that I see with building our own equipment is that very
 few (if any) manufacturers of modular wireless cards have certified them
 with a range of usable external WISP-grade antennas. I don't think this
 2nd Report and Order changes that. Also, remember that the software used
 must limit operation of the complete system only to those frequencies
 and power levels that are legal in the U.S.

 jack


 Scott Reed wrote:
  I haven't read it really well and I have not yet looked up the
  referenced sections of Part 15, but I read the part that is not about
  split modular to be the part the refers to a PC.  And I read it that
  if the PC is certified to have radio cards AND the radio card is
  certified with an antenna, then that PC, radio card and antenna can be
  used.
 
  So, if that is true, then Tim may be on the right track.  Jack is right,
  not any base, but I would read it that any certified base is doable.
  I have often wondered how it works for laptops, but hadn't bothered to
  find it.  This makes sense.  Ubiquiti certifies the CM9 card with a set
  of antennae.  Dell certifies the laptop for a radio card.  Putting a CM9
  in Dell's laptop is fine as long as it connects to an antenna, using the
  proper cable, that was certified with the CM9.
 
  Therefore, if MT can get an RBxxx board certified as a base unit, we
  should be able to use a CM9 in that RBxxx with the proper antenna and be
  good.  The gotcha here is those sections of Part 15 I have not yet
  followed up on.  I am not sure what the professional installer stuff
  is about.
 
  What am I missing or is this good news?
 
  Jack Unger wrote:
  Tim,
 
  I read the 2nd Report and Order and I don't see where it is saying
  that a certified mini PCI radio can be put into any base unit.
 
  I think what the FCC is doing is:
 
  1. Providing eight criteria that clarify the definition of what a
  legal modular assembly is.
 
  2. Allowing some flexibility regarding on-module shielding, data
  inputs, and power supply regulation.
 
  3. Clarifying the definition of what a split modular assembly is.
 
  4. Defining the (somewhat flexible) requirements that a split
  modular assembly must meet.
 
  Although a motherboard will certainly contain an operating system, I
  don't think that a mini PCI radio plugged into any motherboard meets
  the FCC's definition of a split modular assembly. I think the FCC
  considers a split modular assembly to be where circuitry that today
  would be contained on a single modular assembly is (now or in the
  future) split between two different physical assemblies. This
  splitting allows more equipment design flexibility because one
  transmitter control element (the new term that the FCC formerly
  called the module firmware) could theoretically be interfaced with
  and control more than one radio front end (the amplifier and
  antenna-connecting) section.
 
  Of course, that's just my interpretation. I'll bet others could add
  more detail. The bottom line is - I don't think this 2nd Report and
  Order contains anything that will substantially change the way we do
  business.
 
  jack
 
 
 
  Tim Kerns wrote:
  Am I reading this correctly Does this mean that if a mfg of a
  mini pci radio gets it certified with different antenna, that it then
  can be put into ANY base unit and be certified?
 
  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this what we have been
  asking for?
 
  Tim
 
  - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:36 AM
  Subject: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s
  Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval
 
 
  All,
 
  I just received this document and thought it might be of some
  interest to the list.
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-56A1.pdf
 
  Regards,
  Dawn DiPietro
  -- 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
 
 

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


 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 

Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz

2007-04-25 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz


  Now exactly why some people have to say I'm promoting anarchy, or that
I'm
  against all government, or calling government universally evil, I dunno.
  Maybe you could explain it to me.

 Here's where I get the impression, from things you've written such as
these
 few excerpts below.

  Government policy MUST regulate wireless industries for the public
good.
 
  Not really.


Uh, Rich...  I specifically stated that the industry doesn't need to be
controlled.   The RF aspects are subject to regulation, as I think perhaps
we pretty much all agree they should be.

 Do you really truly believe that everyone always benefits from your
  having no restriction whatsoever on what you choose to do?  I respect
  your
 
  yes.  Absolutely.

Why must ** I ** be regulated?   What possible public harm do you think me
being in the internet business without federal oversight could happen?  Too
many people with broadband?   Too cheap of prices?   Too much profit?   Too
much profit lost by others? If I am free to conduct my business
unhindered, it seems the only person who could be hurt in any way is my
competition, and customers will benefit.

 
  opinions immensely but I just can't help believe that deep down you
know
  from your own career experiences that this has never really been true
  under
  all circumstances.

 I don't think I'm reading much between lines, but I guess I could be as
 guilty as anyone.  If I have, you've my humblest, sincerest appologies.  I
 knew better even as I was writing the crack which mentioned Ore/Wash.  It
 was a humble attempt at humor for all the anti-gov militia's that always
 seem to be from there.  I know better than to write such crap, but it
 sometimes leaks out into my writing.

Naw, they come from Idaho and Montana.   Well, heck, I'd live in either if I
could find a way to earn a living.  Probably for the same reason... You get
left alone in both states.  Well, Montana's getting ruined by all the insane
Californians, environmental wackos, and movie stars moving and destroying
the state, but it's still pretty decent.



  Study some history of various industries (not restricted to just
  wireless)
  and you will find that lack of government guidance / or bad
government
  guidance (read: lack of vitally needed regulation) hurts everyone.
We've
 
  Could you provide a few examples?   I can't think of any.

 This is exactly the disconnect.  You've often written that you want total
 freedom from regulation to do whatever you want, and that this is somehow
a
 historically proven axiom that always works out for the best.  Life
doesn't
 work that way.  In connection with other threads I've written at length on
 how the justice dept forcibly knocked down the most advanced
 telecommunications system in the world to its current position way down in
 the pack ... because of a complete fantasy that smaller competing phone
 companies that needed to scratch just to stay in business could somehow
 maintain a leadership position for the American people and American
 industry.  Total hogwash in a world where virtually every other country
has

The way I see it,  the US innovated not a single thing, and we had
completely unchanging and calcified technologically, in the POTS system.
I can't imagine this being good.   What you saw was that there was almost
NO consumer market for phone products.

 a consolidated PTT (which immediately began gaining ground and passed the
 United States in leadership, technology, features, etc., etc.).  This
badly
 hurt you, me, and every other American.  I've written at length in other

I can't imagine how.   I have far better service, it costs a small fraction
of what it used to, and now I have options galore, for phone service.  How
you can call this bad, I can't imagine.  I think it's the best thing to
happen to Ma Bell.

 threads how the FCC (with several large US manufacturers) took us down
from
 our #1 leadership position in the world in cellular technology and service
 by totally reversing its own previous position on the standards that had
at
 one time made AMPS the world leader.  This has badly hurt every American
 that uses a cellphone, and totally eliminated all US manufacturers out of
 world leadership (and yet it was originally advocated by US manufacturers
 ... where my opinion comes from that business's don't necessarily know
 what's in their own best interest).  There's many examples of business's

I think you're all wrong.  The commoditization of cellular phones is what
turned the industry from small potatoes, overly expensive products, to
commodity cell phones produced by low-value commodity production systems.
Just like we no longer have to pay a month's wages to buy a rather primitive
TV.   Now you can buy a great one for peanuts,. and Americans aren't 

Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval

2007-04-25 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s
Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval


 Mark,

 I agree with you on many of the points that you've been making recently
 regarding who should pay (or not pay) for CALEA compliance but with
 regard to the meaning of these FCC rules modifications, I disagree with
 virtually all of your opinions. There's nothing wrong with that; we are
 each entitled to our own opinions.

 Further, I'm not going to keep debating these points with you. I've
 stated by beliefs and you've stated yours. Feel free to build and
 certify your equipment any way that you see fit and believe is legal.
 The discussion that really counts is the one that you have with the FCC.

 Please see my comments inline and good luck.

 jack

Well, Jack, I guess we'll ultimately find out what they really mean when
when they have to answer questions in plain english.   While Im sure you
have more experience reading between the lines than I have... or at least
desciphering the legalese they put out,  I get what I say from reading the
document.

Then again, don't forget...  there's the law of unintended consequences...
that they say stuff without realizing how it can be interpreted.

Ultimately, who's going to be the one asking them for clarity here?

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition

2007-04-23 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition


 Mark Koskenmaki wrote:

  
  Never say never, they say.What will you do when the FCC or FBI
 comes and
  says  we want you to help us enforce... blah blah?You're going
 to have
  a hard time saying no when you have already made a policy of always
 saying
  yes.   You will have to blow that non-existent 'goodwill'.  It wont'
  have bought us or anyone else a thing.   How many times must I say it?
It
  would be far better to have a solidly honest position of ALWAYS
 standing up
  for our industry, in everywhere way, in opposition to EVERYTHING
negative.


 First, let me say that there is no going to DC and standing up for this
 Industry.
 It is barely an Industry. And with 200 paid members out of 2000 possible
 WISP's, it is not very representative. Plus you have Part-15 and its

Well, if your point is that WISPA hasn't much muscle, not even combined with
part-15's numbers, I have no disagreement with that.   This IS, however, an
industry, with thousands of players, both big and small.   Are we
comparable to telco in assets and sales?  No, but then for some reason, we
can run rings around them in ceertain markets.

 agenda. You have Vendors and their agenda. You have the so-called Big
 Boys like NextWeb, Clearwire, ELN or whomever - and thiner agenda. And
 if by some stroke of luck, energy and effort, you could get them all to
 back your one principle, even then - and with money in the bank - it
 would be a wasted effort to spend John's, Marlon's and Rick's own money
 to go to DC to Stand Up. Because someone would break ranks for a deal
 or good will or whatever.

Hmmm... You know, I thought I made the case that we needed the numbers...
and that WISPA needed the numbers, too, for more clout. I guess maybe
I have to say these things, and not just let people connect the logical
dots.


 Ask Frank Muto. You have to have Leverage to Stand Up. And a significant
 number behind you who are willing and demonstrate a willingness to
 support. Um, we don't have that here.

 DC is not the Town Hall. DC is layers upon layers of subterfuge. You
 need a full-time well-connected lobbyist. IN a former life, we hired a
 well-connected lobbyist to ask Karl Rove if Indie ISP's had a chance (in
 2005). This was about the time of Brand-X and Forbearance. The lobbyist
 gave us the check back with a solemn look. A lobbyist returned money.
 What does THAT tell you?

that says that we're not going to influence Congress much, unless we manage
to find some politician allies.


 I hired a PR firm to craft 14 template letters that just needed a
 signature, a name and an address to be faxed to Congress. Do you know
 how many times it was downloaded? 15. Yeah.

 SO tell me again how WISPA with 200 paid members should Stand Up?
 I'd love to hear the plan, because the one I used obviously did not work.

Hrm... So, maybe the point is that you need to stir up the membership to
fight for thier own interest.   Best way I can tell, is to slap down the
ones that speak up and say they disagree with something.  /sarcasm


  
   I am not advocating shunning the rules. I am advocating telling those
   making up the rules as they go, TO BACK OFF BECAUSE THEY ARE
   COUNTERPRODUCTIVE!It is both our privilege and our duty to tell
 them to
   back off when they cross their proper boundaries.   And we should be
 utterly
   unafraid to do so.

 Actually all your speeches have been about shunning the rules and you
 have stated you will not comply.
 That may not be your message, but that is what you have written.


It is not realy your business.  But for some reason you want to make this
about what I do.   Is that because generically, the ideas themselves are
hard to argue with?I stated publicly once, clearly, what my intention
is.  And looks like this... I'm still waiting for some kind of agreement and
clear direction from the people working on it.   If i can do it, I will.  If
not, I won't.   If not, the FCC is going to know I am not, and cannot.
Then I want to know...   Where does WISPA fall on this?   Does WISPA support
the notion of taking out ISP's because they cannot technically or
financially, or physically follow some stupidly obscure and obtuse demand?

Or will they start arguing in defense of their industry?

Because as far as I can tell, I cannot.   What I have deployed lacks the
technical capability to comply.   Yeah, I could help law enforcement, but
I can't follow thier stupidly precise and yet obscure specified methodology.

I know you've repeatedly complained that I don't put my money where my mouth
is, because I can't buy plane tickets and hotel nights and can't run for
office in WISPA.   But I WILL put EVERYTHING on the line.  I'll fight the
FCC by myself if I have to.  And, it sounds like a lot

Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition

2007-04-23 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition


 OK, I'm in a pissy mood today so don't anyone take this too personally.


So am I.


 We filed in support of the new antenna rules.  It's MUCH cheaper and
easier
 to be FCC compliant today.

So did a bunch of us.


 The data from the 477 is easy, non useful to competitors etc. and would be
 MUCH more valuable if people actually filled the dang thing out.  We've
 worked with industry to get accurate data to the FCC via the 477 and other
 methods.  We're not fighting against the 477 cause there's no reason to
 fight it.  It's a LAW and the FCC HAS to ask us for the data.  If we're
 gonna fight for a change in a law we're better off to pick a different
 battle.

Right.  The FCC didn't even want information from small providers...and then
behold, certain people I was giving money to to represent me (and I thought
they were) suddenly turned on me,  and encouraged the FCC to apply it to
everyone.

Law?  Hell, no.  It's the FCC's wishes.   And we're discussing how stupid
the whole damn thing is as well.  And here you are defending it.  You wonder
why I'm in a pissy mood???


 CALEA is a law that you must follow.  It's not the big nasty thing you
keep
 making it sound like.  Nothing more than the electronic version of the
 wiretapping laws that have been on the books for as long as anyone I know
 can remember.  What WISPA has been doing is helping you figure out what
you
 have to do to be compliant.  We've spent out time and money working to
make
 this as easy as we can for you so that you DON'T have to shut the doors
due
 to this.  We're also working on mechanisms that will be FBI approved and
 will allow you to be compliant in even nicer ways for less money.

$1 and 1 minute is TOO MUCH OBLIGATION.   Sorry.   Anyone who thinks we OWE
them anything for our existence is cracked.  THEY OWE US GRATITUDE FOR DOING
THE COUNTRYS WORK  And they owe us a check for doing work for them.
THAT's NOT RADICAL, that's nothing other than CIVICS 101!


 When I get a chance, we're gonna fight for self certification for WISPs.
 That'll make all of our networks automatically compliant except in the
most
 extreme cases or where people refuse to run legal power levels.

So,  we can argue and advocate to the FCC about rules changes and
implementations about RF issues, but God forbid we should tell them that
CALEA is out of line?It is STILL their ruling and opinions, which is the
sole reason we're issued network mandates.

HARRRUMPH!!! to repeat an old fashioned retort.


 I could probably write another page or two about what WISPA HAS done to
make
 YOUR life as a WISP easier and more long term stable/predictable.  I think
 the point has been made though.

I like you, Marlon.  We've done stuff together and I have respect for you as
a person.  So don't take this personally...but I call BS on it!


 My next point is that you really have NO business spouting this rubbish
 Mark.  You made some great arguments but they are based on half truths or
 ignorance of the facts.  They are also, for the most part, a Red Herring.
 You see, RIGHT NOW we have to be CALEA compliant.  If we don't like that
we
 can fight it, but that fight will have to come later.  Doesn't matter if
we
 like the law or not, either obey or run the risk of getting caught.  WE
 decided to take the time to help you comply rather than risk getting the
 $10k per day fines.

There will be no fight later.   We should have been telling them to stuff it
because this silly nonsense that applies to TELCOS doesn't apply to IP
networks.

Instead, we should be telling them that due to diversity and innovation,
it's absolutely impossible to not stifle the way we do things and conform to
obscure and frankly... SILLY demands.

IF it were me, my comments would be, we as an industry stand ready and
willing to assist law enforcement and homeland security any way we can, but
it is NOT our obligation to morph our networks into the federal mold at our
expense.   Rather,  it is imperative that the FBI, DOJ, and local law
enforcement develop reasonable abilities to deal with IP networks, and that
we can work with agencies that have reasonable ability to understand and
work with cutting edge technologies, rather than trying to restrain an
entire industry for their convenience.

I am not advocating flaunting the law, for pity's sakes.   I am just
eternally vigilant and VERY defensive of my rights and freedoms as a citizen
and businessman.   Instead, we should have been ADAMANTLY and repeatedly
saying in forceful language, THIS IS NOT UNIVERSALLY POSSIBLE, and then
asking the industry what ways they can be accommodated- and educating them,
NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND - them telling us how our networks have to work.

It's called setting precedents, 

Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition

2007-04-23 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition


 Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
  Law?  Hell, no.  It's the FCC's wishes.   And we're discussing how
stupid
  the whole damn thing is as well.  And here you are defending it.  You
wonder
  why I'm in a pissy mood???
 
 It's indirectly a law - the FCC is granted broad powers under current
 law to request things like this. If you think the FCC's authority goes
 too far, you're welcome to that opinion (and to try to change others'
 minds on the subject, though it doesn't seem like you've had much luck
 so far).

 Given that the FCC gives us access to a truckload of unlicensed spectrum
 and, so far, only asks me to fill out a ten-minute form twice a year, I
 think it's a darn good bargain.

It's not a 'favor' from the FCC.   I don't owe them a blasted thing for it.

It's public spectrum, for public use.   It does NOT belong to the FCC, it is
charged with regulating it, not doling out in return for favors!   It is
given the task of regulating it for the best public interest.   How well it
does that is definitely up for discussion, but that IS the FCC's job.
You're acting as if it belongs to them and we're asking for their property.
It's not that way.


  $1 and 1 minute is TOO MUCH OBLIGATION.   Sorry.   Anyone who thinks we
OWE
  them anything for our existence is cracked.  THEY OWE US GRATITUDE FOR
DOING
  THE COUNTRYS WORK  And they owe us a check for doing work for them.
  THAT's NOT RADICAL, that's nothing other than CIVICS 101!
 
 Maybe we went to different schools. Mine had a bunch of classes on how
 everyone is responsible for doing their part in a participatory
 democracy. (I know, this is technically a representative republic, but
 bear with me here.) You pay some property taxes, you get to use all
 those roads they built. The government doesn't give you stuff for free,
 you don't give them stuff for free. It's all trade-offs. Basic
 freshman-year-of-college economics. A few minutes to fill out a form is
 a pretty darn good price for everything we get from the FCC.

I'd say they are sorely overpaid.   As far as everything we get?   In my
view,  they are derelict in doing what should be done.  Hardly a case that I
owe them my identity, and my business information in return.   Even more
offensive to me, is the idea that we can brown-nose them into getting stuff.
If that's the case, and that's how we want the game played, then we have no
chance against the high powered, high dollar efforts by the big boys.  We
have to appeal to right, wrong, reason, logic, and principle.  It's all we
have.  And it's certainly better to play that game than to get down in the
muck where the money tries to buy what they want.


  So,  we can argue and advocate to the FCC about rules changes and
  implementations about RF issues, but God forbid we should tell them that
  CALEA is out of line?It is STILL their ruling and opinions, which is
the
  sole reason we're issued network mandates.
 
 To be blunt, your opinion is (apparently) in the minority. If you think
 CALEA goes too far, I don't think anyone is preventing you from making
 FCC filings to that effect.

What, you want me to get into a filings fight with WISPA?Geez, man.  I
was here when WISPA was started, I STILL WANT TO SEE IT GROW.   I want it to
be the energetic organization that people see value in jumping in and
supporting.

  I am not advocating flaunting the law, for pity's sakes.   I am just
  eternally vigilant and VERY defensive of my rights and freedoms as a
citizen
  and businessman.   Instead, we should have been ADAMANTLY and repeatedly
  saying in forceful language, THIS IS NOT UNIVERSALLY POSSIBLE, and then
  asking the industry what ways they can be accommodated- and educating
them,
  NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND - them telling us how our networks have to
work.
 
 While I'm sure the statement this is not universally possible is
 technically correct (the best kind of correct!) I believe you're
 seriously over-estimating the difficulty. I'd wager most of us already
 have, somewhere in our network, a decent managed switch that can be
 configured to spit out the requested data. Feed said data into a cheap
 PC with a big hard drive (another thing that most of us already have),
 filter out the specific bits the government wants, spit it out. If this
 takes more than a couple hours to set up, there's something seriously
 weird going on with your network.

You say this, but yet none of us seem to be able to point to a single WISP
not using someone else's services or software to do it, and nobody seems to
know if ANY of it works yet.  This is hardly overestimating.  Besides, who
the heck cares if it's overestimating.   If it forces anyone to change how
their products work, then it's wrong.  I'm seeing people talking about
COMPLETELY

Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition

2007-04-23 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
Whoa...  I think someone's goofed slightly here.  I said i don't owe them my
services, skills, etc, for free.

David said that we don't get stuff given to them, and we should not be
giving them things for free.However, I think his point was that he's
viewing the mandates on us as payment for unlicensed spectrum.

I see unlicensed spectrum as nothing more than the FCC doing it's job, to
promote use of a public asset (rf spectrum) as it's supposed to be used...
for the benefit of the people.  I don't see that as obligating me to do any
old thing they happen to dream up for me to do for them.

And if it's a quid pro quo, where's the balance point?   Do I owe them a
$100 / mo service?   A $3000 + 400/mo ttp contract for it?   WHat is it?

And why aren't we defending our industry from gatekeeper regulation which
stifles entry into it?

Man, you people don't logically connect the dots, do you?   Why wasn't WISPA
asking every member, list member, and everyone else they could to flood the
FCC with objections, and then offer a much saner view of how ISP's can
assist LEA's?WISPA doesn't need to advocate flaunting the law to object,
as some here are misportraying the notion.Instead, we're trying to
downplay a very arbitrary intrusion into our networks and business.  Instead
of building leadership, WISPA is letting it slip away.

Or maybe WISPA's figuring to join the ranks of the TTP's out there trying to
scare people into buying into something for protection.   When that's done
to a brick and mortar business, it's called extortion.   Really, I don't
think they are...  But that's how some people have viewed it.  I know, I've
seen the comments.




- Original Message - 
From: Ryan Langseth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition


 On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 21:19 -0700, George Rogato wrote:
 
  David E. Smith wrote:
   Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
  You pay some property taxes, you get to use all
   those roads they built.
   . It's all trade-offs. Basic
   freshman-year-of-college economics.
 
 
  I just wanted to point out an error you just made mark, you said :
 
  The government doesn't give you stuff for free,
 
  And your correct, but this other part is incorrect:
 
  you don't give them stuff for free
 
  Yes we do.

 Care to quantify this statement?
 
  -- 
  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] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition

2007-04-23 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
Heh...  Is this an argument that taxes are a violation of the 5th Amendment?
Especially the part that says ...nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation. ?

That's where I derive my idea that we do not owe them any services or
spending money to provide services or labor without compensation.   Heck,
CALEA provided funds to the telcos to compensate them...  Why the heck are
we special and not protected?From the arguments here, we have an
unfillable debt owed merely for use of unlicensed spectrum... I disagree
there's any debt or obligation whatsoever.





- Original Message - 
From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 9:47 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition





  you don't give them stuff for free
 
  Yes we do.
 
  Care to quantify this statement?

 Sure, the government has never paid me to give them taxes.

 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] 5GHz Amps

2007-04-22 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
My expeirence is that the grids are on par, gain-wise, with the solid
dishes.   The solid dishes have MANY RF advantages, but a 26 db grid will do
26 db and 29 dish will do 29.

the solid dishes have advantages in stability, beam accuracy, front/back
ratio, and so on.  But the gain is the gain, it seems.




- Original Message - 
From: Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 5GHz Amps


 Does anyone have some real-world experience comparing the grid with the
 solid 5.8 antennas.
 Is the listed gain accurate in describing performance? or are there
 additional advantages of the solid dish at equivalent gain ratings?
 I have only installed grid at this point, due to local high wind
 considerations and the cost factor.
 Thanks.
 Steve

 --


 Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
  I don't know what equiopment you use... but...  here's a scenario...
 
  20 dbm radios...15 db panel on one side and a 32 db solid dish on
the
  other.  At 15 miles, you should have a -68 signal.  (Araya's link
calculator
  says this)You're WELL within the P2P eirp rules for 5.8, and at -68
you
  should be able to use a star-os or mikrotik or other similar based link
at
  around 36Meg data rate.
 
  My stuff will stay pretty much at 54meg data rate at a -68, and even
serious
  weather fade should keep you at 24Meg or above.
 
  Workable?   pacwireless sells the solid 32db dish for 270 online.
 
  I sometimes use Compex 23 dbm a/b/g radios, for the power at 5 ghz, and
they
  cost what I used to pay for CM-9's.
 
 
 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 4:28 PM
  Subject: [WISPA] 5GHz Amps
 
 
 
  I'm needing to do a 14-mile link at 5.8GHz.  I will have to use a
 
  15-or-so flat panel antenna due to building owner's asthetics
requirements.
  On this 8-story building, I'll mount to the side of the masonry, then
I'll
  have about 25 feet of LMR-400 from the antenna to a weatherproof
enclosure
  with 110v power.
 
  On the other side I'll be 100' up on a tower on a hilltop, and I can
use a
 
  higher-gain antenna.
 
  I believe I'll have to use an amplifier to achieve this.
 
  Soo...
 
  A) Am I incorrect about this?
 
  B) If I'm correct, what 5GHz amps have you found to be effective?
 
  C) Opinions on using regular or bi-directional amps?
 
  Mark Nash
  Network Engineer
  UnwiredOnline.Net
  350 Holly Street
  Junction City, OR 97448
  http://www.uwol.net
  541-998-
  541-998-5599 fax
  -- 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 

 -- 
 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] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition

2007-04-22 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
Peter, your intended meaning for the word...and what I assumed you meant,
were pretty much the same.  I am not offended by it, so no worries.

You stated something that I was hoping you'd reveal...  it goes something
like this, the regulators are in pursuit of control or cooperation.   I'd
like to point out that there's no cooperation, really.   Oh, a little.
They meet and play politely, but nowhere in this mess do we have a veto over
ANYTHING they propose to demand.   All couched in nice language, but it's
still the man with the gun saying do it or die.

And, as you rightly point out, somewhere down this road, comes a point of
confrontation.   When the FCC realizes that the great majority simply will
not comply... or, perhaps, cannot, or even more obtusely, don't even know or
care,  these two trains are headed head on down the same track, in opposite
directions.

I dunno what it's going to look like, I don't know how public it will be,
but the nature of regulators is to take out non-compliance.   The question
is then, who will WISPA, EFF, etc, etc, stand with?Court fights between
the FCC and FBI and DOJ, etc, aside, the rubber meets the road when the
deadlines arrive, and I suspect that the vast majority of networks that are
supposed to be compliant are not.  Then what?

As you know, WISPA reprepresents under 200 actual members.  Part 15 has no
huge number either.  At that point, does the FCC start shutting down
THOUSANDS of networks?   If the industry associations take their side...
Yes.  And when or if Part 15 or WISPA takes the side of taking people
down...  Exactly what do you think their future growth will be?

This is going to get ugly, people.   It's going to get REAL ugly, because I
don't think that WISPA will be able to remain on the fence.   I know where
Bullitt stands.  He's already publicly threatened to destroy non-compliant
people.   I told him what I thought of that, and that's why I have a
consultant of the year plaque on my wall signed by him, but am banned from
everything Part-15.  It was his stand that he was going to employ people to
search out WISP's and report non-filers.   I dunno if he did or not.

This is why I posted about whether our industry is going to thrive or die.
The FCC or FBI or whomever, is going to ask everyone to help enforce.   If
that means putting people out of business, will WISPA do it?   I'm not
asking this to incite an argument with the list members and the board, I'm
pointing out that there's coming a point where there's a NO WIN situation
coming.   And, it might NOT be over CALEA.   It might be the next thing to
come down the pike.

Should WISPA engage in helping members help authorities in lawful pursuit of
criminals?   Oh, absolutely.

So far, WISPA is sitting the fence.   We don't police the industry.   But
what will be the response when the FCC asks them to?  I would suggest the
board at present and the soon to be elected board members consider this now.
I'm not even suggesting one way or the other.  I'm no longer a member of
WISPA, though I strongly support the notion and value of a trade
organization for WISP's.

I would guess from the response, we all see the need for MORE, not less
WISP's in our country, and we need growth in our industry.  What will be the
response when WISPA is asked to undertake or support enforcement actions
that reduce the numbers and place barrriers to entry into the WISP business?

As you stated... WE ARE COWBOYS.  That's because that's who is always the
forefront of any industry.  The intrepid, the gutsy, the indedpendent, the
stubborn, and willful.  And I  can predict without any hesitation that a
majority, perhaps not of WISPA members, but of the non-allied network
operators will not be so easily corralled into compliance.  Not because what
they need is wrong, but because it's wrong for the government to do what
it's trying to do, place mandates on us for purely it's own convenience.

The choices now will have a huge influence on the future.No matter which
way the twig is bent, the tree starts that way and reversing course will NOT
be without pain, cost and consequence.   No matter which way WISPA goes, it
will cause grief, pain, and consequences.   There's NO WINNING this one.
There's no side to choose to come out smelling like a rose.

I suspect you all know what the stand would be should i be in charge.   But
either way,  the sooner leadership gets on a side, and stands by it with
whatever principles they choose to uphold, the better.   Yeah, I think we
should have addresssed this long ago.  But there's another important
decision by the feds to make.. and that is what kind of enforcement...
Enough fight from the industry, and they WILL change their minds.   As you
so clearly stated, DC is a land of linguine spines.   Expedience is king.
That's why the FCC dumped CALEA on us in the first place.   No stomach for
the fight.

Now, what will we do?

You imply that in order to win their way, the feds are willing to 

Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition

2007-04-22 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition


 Mark,
 As the driver of the bus I feel compelled to reply. You certainly do a
 god job of selling your ideas. I could almost decide to mutiny along
 with you if I did not believe that part of doing business is to obey the
 laws of the land.

But I am not talking about mutiny.   Where is the unwritten rule that
whatever Uncle Sam wants, he gets without argument?   There is a very much
alive principle that there is going to be contention between those
un-elected regulators and those they seek to regulate.  If we have no
choice, if we cannnot argue back, then we live in a society I no longer
recognize nor want to live in.   If it is WISPA's position that we cannot
lobby, argue, and publicly campaign against things they do wrong, then
WISPA's wrong too.



 So far the government of the United States has asked some fairly basic
 things of me and our industry in order to be able to use the airwaves
 for free in the United States and to freely operate our businesses.

Baloney!   I was BORN WITH THE RIGHT to do this.  I do not owe the federal
government one single IOTA of consideration.  Sorry.  I pay my taxes.
That's my obligation.   I do not OWE for the privelidge of being in
business providing needed services.   I do not owe one smidgeon of giving up
privelege, rights, or anything else for doing what I do.  If I owe ANYONE
for the use of the public spectrum, then I owe the people I provide service
to... to whom that spectrum belongs.


They
 have told me that I must use equipment which has been tested and
 certified to comply with the rules. They have told me not to exceed
 power levels.

These are general principles we can all agree on.

 They want to know where we serve and how many people we
 serve.

They're welcome to poll my valley and find out, if they really want to know.
Just demanding I do the work for them is wrong.  Plain old wrong.   Not to
mention, they already admitted the information is useless anyway.  Did we
tell them we thought that was a bad idea way back when?  Nope.  Why the
bloody hell not???  There's REAL stuff that can be done to advance what they
want advanced, rather than waste our time, their time, and our money on
pointless nonsense?   Why weren't we advocating this all along?


 They want me to help them if they need to catch criminals who are
 using our networks for planning criminal acts.

No problem.   But they can darn well pay for it.

 Each of these
 requirements seem to be logical things a government would expect of the
 businesses who serve the people that they represent.

No, it's logical WANTS of a government.   They have not the slightest IOTA
of reason to expect we should volunteer our time, talents, and spend our
money for their wants.  I do NOT, nor does anyone else, OWE them this.  They
are MY SERVANTS.  I am not theirs.  I do not owe them the slightest
consideration or otherwise.   They OWE ME if they want me to do something
for them.

 I do not like the
 way many of these things are being handled by our government and I do
 not like some of the rules but I have no problem complying with these
 rules and laws.

But you put yourself in the position of being the person to express FOR US,
or objections.


 I feel it is WISPA's job to make sure operators know how to comply with
 the rules and the laws and to try to lobby for change in the way
 government interacts with us when we see it is being done wrong. If
 WISPA ever develops a certification program for WISPs then we will, by
 default, become somewhat of a policing agency for our industry at least
 if people acknowledge us as an authority within the industry. The
 policing authority would not move to the obstructive and intrusive
 levels as described by you, Mark. It would simply be a self-imposed and
 recognized certification system which others could support or in your
 case probably ignore. I am sure part of the certification process would
 involve an oath that an operator would follow the rules and laws of the
 country they serve. Any industry trade association who offers a
 certification process would require the same I would think.

Works for me.


 There would only be government recognition of such a system if they
 opted to recognize it officially in some way. An example might be that a
 WISPA certified operator might be granted some leeway in mixing and
 matching certified components in order to build certified systems which
 may not have been tested in a lab as a system. Another example would be
 that the FCC might develop band sharing rules where some bands could be
 coordinated between certified operators. These are only examples for
 reference sake.

Right.  These are items of negotiation  between regulators and those wanting
something.   More to the point, they are the bits 

Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition

2007-04-22 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
I used to be,  Mac.

The why not now is not to be aired in public.


- Original Message - 
From: Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 1:00 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition


 Mark,


 Are you a paid WISPA member?



 Mac Dearman



 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
 Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 11:43 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband
Competition

 Peter, your intended meaning for the word...and what I assumed you meant,
 were pretty much the same.  I am not offended by it, so no worries.

 You stated something that I was hoping you'd reveal...  it goes something
 like this, the regulators are in pursuit of control or cooperation.
I'd
 like to point out that there's no cooperation, really.   Oh, a little.
 They meet and play politely, but nowhere in this mess do we have a veto
over
 ANYTHING they propose to demand.   All couched in nice language, but it's
 still the man with the gun saying do it or die.

 And, as you rightly point out, somewhere down this road, comes a point of
 confrontation.   When the FCC realizes that the great majority simply will
 not comply... or, perhaps, cannot, or even more obtusely, don't even know
or
 care,  these two trains are headed head on down the same track, in
opposite
 directions.

 I dunno what it's going to look like, I don't know how public it will be,
 but the nature of regulators is to take out non-compliance.   The question
 is then, who will WISPA, EFF, etc, etc, stand with?Court fights
between
 the FCC and FBI and DOJ, etc, aside, the rubber meets the road when the
 deadlines arrive, and I suspect that the vast majority of networks that
are
 supposed to be compliant are not.  Then what?

 As you know, WISPA reprepresents under 200 actual members.  Part 15 has no
 huge number either.  At that point, does the FCC start shutting down
 THOUSANDS of networks?   If the industry associations take their side...
 Yes.  And when or if Part 15 or WISPA takes the side of taking people
 down...  Exactly what do you think their future growth will be?

 This is going to get ugly, people.   It's going to get REAL ugly, because
I
 don't think that WISPA will be able to remain on the fence.   I know where
 Bullitt stands.  He's already publicly threatened to destroy non-compliant
 people.   I told him what I thought of that, and that's why I have a
 consultant of the year plaque on my wall signed by him, but am banned
from
 everything Part-15.  It was his stand that he was going to employ people
to
 search out WISP's and report non-filers.   I dunno if he did or not.

 This is why I posted about whether our industry is going to thrive or die.
 The FCC or FBI or whomever, is going to ask everyone to help enforce.   If
 that means putting people out of business, will WISPA do it?   I'm not
 asking this to incite an argument with the list members and the board, I'm
 pointing out that there's coming a point where there's a NO WIN situation
 coming.   And, it might NOT be over CALEA.   It might be the next thing to
 come down the pike.

 Should WISPA engage in helping members help authorities in lawful pursuit
of
 criminals?   Oh, absolutely.

 So far, WISPA is sitting the fence.   We don't police the industry.
But
 what will be the response when the FCC asks them to?  I would suggest the
 board at present and the soon to be elected board members consider this
now.
 I'm not even suggesting one way or the other.  I'm no longer a member of
 WISPA, though I strongly support the notion and value of a trade
 organization for WISP's.

 I would guess from the response, we all see the need for MORE, not less
 WISP's in our country, and we need growth in our industry.  What will be
the
 response when WISPA is asked to undertake or support enforcement actions
 that reduce the numbers and place barrriers to entry into the WISP
business?

 As you stated... WE ARE COWBOYS.  That's because that's who is always the
 forefront of any industry.  The intrepid, the gutsy, the indedpendent, the
 stubborn, and willful.  And I  can predict without any hesitation that a
 majority, perhaps not of WISPA members, but of the non-allied network
 operators will not be so easily corralled into compliance.  Not because
what
 they need is wrong, but because it's wrong for the government to do what
 it's trying to do, place mandates on us for purely it's own convenience.

 The choices now will have a huge influence on the future.No matter
which
 way the twig is bent, the tree starts that way and reversing course will
NOT
 be without pain, cost and consequence.   No matter which way WISPA goes,
it
 will cause grief, pain, and consequences.   There's NO WINNING this one.
 There's no side to choose to come out smelling like a rose.

 I suspect

[WISPA] What about equipment providers?

2007-04-22 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
If we're to take some of what's been published literally,  all wisp
equipment providers are going to be required to be CALEA compliant.

This is going to lead to some serious compatibility and interoperability
issues, if you ask me.  HOW equipment maker A, B, and C accomplish stuff is
likely going to be different.   Thus, a network with mixed equipment may
turn out to be almost impossible to put together completely.

What about all of us who buy stuff from outside the US?What about the
people who have large networks with now out of production equipment?   Will
CELEA COMPLIANT stickers now be required to get into the WISP business?

I don't see anyone addressing this.  Nor do I see anyone addressing
community and free networks.   While WISPA is definitely a WISP association,
we're dead in the water if the WISP equipment providers dry up or go away,
or we become stuck with one or two equipment providers, and all the
compliant stuff is 50% more in price...


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition

2007-04-21 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
Of coures it's flawed.   That's like saying that if anyone within zipcode
x has a newly paved street in front of their home, then everyone in zip
code x has the same.

I don't offer service via zip code.   I offer service via where my signal
reaches.

And, I've even made a few little interesting things to get service where it
DOES NOT reach.   Or...well, it didn't at first.

The presumption that every who has broadband available will buy it is...
absurd.  We all know that.

I know people who won't even pay for dialup.

The question is, why do we want to know?I can think of business reasons
why I'd want to know.  But why would the mayor of my town, for instance,
want to know?   What public purpose would be served by expending resources
to find out?   None, that I can actually think of.

Even nationally, the SAME ANSWER applies.   There is no actual need OF ANY
KIND to know the number.   If 27 percent of the population has broadband
available, is there some kind of crisis?  What if it's 80%?   what if it's
99.776 %?The answer is, THE NUMBER DOES NOT MATTER.   Once you realize
this fundamental truth, then we  can get beyond this, and start to make
coherent and  logical analysis of what's going on, and what, if anything,
should be done about it.

First, to get a clear-eyed perspective, let's look at something that's an
indisputable need.   Food.  Is there anywhere in this country you can't
buy food?   ( Yeah, I know, try going to out eat in Odessa, it's a
constraining experience)  If you know of any town where the people cannot,
without extreme difficulty obtain food, I'd love to hear of it.  So, let me
ask you...  Is the ubiquitous availability of commodity food due to
government policy?   Was a large government initiative required to get
grocery stores available throughout our nation?   Did the USDA and other
agencies create programs to fund the creation of grocery stores throughout
the country?   Did Congress address the lack of grocery stores repeatedly
until it was solved?

The negative answers to all those somewhat silly questions is kind of
obvious.  Whereever people wanted to live, there was a demand for a place to
buy at least the staples and someone filled that need, often more than a
single someone, and they competed for the customer.

So, why is the FCC and Congress in a dither about where broadband is
available?   If people want it, it will come.  Just like grocery stores.

If it won't, then the real question of consequence is... WHY?

Is it not economically feasible?   If not, why not?

Is it physically not feasible?   If not, why not?

Is the actual demand enough to sustain the mechanism to provide the service?
(you mean they might not want it?  Yeah... they might not!)

Then, finally, what artificial obstructions exist to providing broadband?

Let me state some of the issues that the above questions begin to relate
to...  economically feasible, to start with.  What are the main problems
that occur money-wise when attempting to bring broadband to an unserved
area, or make it financially unworkable?

Gee, a good lot of you have done it, me included.  What about we collaborate
a bit and summarize those obstacles we found and overcame?   This would be a
good topic for someone to lead a thread on for a while.

Physical issues.  I met an ISP in Idaho who built a backbone over 2
mountains.  He had to go something like 60 to 80 miles to find a location
where he c ould get hooked up.   Impressive effort, to say the least.  What
about some eastern and southern areas that are nothing but solid trees?
What physical barriers exist to deliver broadband via physical medium
(fiber, copper, etc)?

How many of us, me included, built a network because our gut said we had a
market?   Can I see a show of hands?   How did we decide that our market was
large enough to sustain the size and expense we incurred?   Howw many were
dramatically wrong in that assumption - in either direction?

Lastly, what artificial barriers exist?I have a rather large list of my
own, and somehow I'll bet you people  can dwarf what I've observed.   Let's
do this list style.

The only connectivity available is through a phone company, and they can
price you into the realm of non-workabilty.

I have two towns in my market that have specifically enacted regulations to
PREVENT any further wireless OR WIRED telecommunications services from
being deployed.   That is, they have claimed control over all rights of way
and the air within their town.   No towers, no rooftops, no pole to pole,
no underground, NOTHING may be deployed in these towns without going through
a process which is carefully calculated to cost a LOT of money the outcome
is almost gauranteed to be negative.  If the citizens don't object, then
they have built in mechanisms to cost unlimited sums of money and unlimited
delays at the whim of the any of the city officials.   The codes start out
with we believe our town to be more than adequately served by

Re: [WISPA] 5GHz Amps

2007-04-21 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

I don't know what equiopment you use... but...  here's a scenario...

20 dbm radios...15 db panel on one side and a 32 db solid dish on the
other.  At 15 miles, you should have a -68 signal.  (Araya's link calculator
says this)You're WELL within the P2P eirp rules for 5.8, and at -68 you
should be able to use a star-os or mikrotik or other similar based link at
around 36Meg data rate.

My stuff will stay pretty much at 54meg data rate at a -68, and even serious
weather fade should keep you at 24Meg or above.

Workable?   pacwireless sells the solid 32db dish for 270 online.

I sometimes use Compex 23 dbm a/b/g radios, for the power at 5 ghz, and they
cost what I used to pay for CM-9's.



- Original Message - 
From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 4:28 PM
Subject: [WISPA] 5GHz Amps


 I'm needing to do a 14-mile link at 5.8GHz.  I will have to use a
15-or-so flat panel antenna due to building owner's asthetics requirements.
On this 8-story building, I'll mount to the side of the masonry, then I'll
have about 25 feet of LMR-400 from the antenna to a weatherproof enclosure
with 110v power.

 On the other side I'll be 100' up on a tower on a hilltop, and I can use a
higher-gain antenna.

 I believe I'll have to use an amplifier to achieve this.

 Soo...

 A) Am I incorrect about this?

 B) If I'm correct, what 5GHz amps have you found to be effective?

 C) Opinions on using regular or bi-directional amps?

 Mark Nash
 Network Engineer
 UnwiredOnline.Net
 350 Holly Street
 Junction City, OR 97448
 http://www.uwol.net
 541-998-
 541-998-5599 fax
 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Interesting Call Today

2007-04-18 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
I read about a couple of other people getting similar...errr..all but
identical calls on an online forum somewhere, I think it was dslreports
maybe?

This makes like the 5th time I've seen this kind of posting, but as of yet,
nobody has stated they provided any services, it was always just a request
that appeared to be evaluating the viability of a  conference site.

Mark


- Original Message - 
From: Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 11:06 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Interesting Call Today


 One of our salespeople got a call today from ATT that I feel I must share
 and see if others are getting similar calls.



 The ATT rep told our saleperson that he was looking for temporary (2 day
 service) to various locations that do not have access to cable/DSL or
fiber.
 They need these connections for conference call meetings and will need our
 company to set up a wireless router at the location as well.  He needs
these
 connections done in as short as a 3-4 day window.



 Has anyone else had similar calls?  Not sure if they are just fishing for
 information or what.



 Thanks,



 Rick Harnish

 President

 OnlyInternet Broadband  Wireless, Inc.

 260-827-2482

 Founding Member of WISPA



 -- 
 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] My Hypothetical Conversation with Julius Knapp, Chief of OET

2007-02-09 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
-- Original Message --
To: WISPA General List (wireless@wispa.org)
From: Patrick Leary ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: [WISPA] My Hypothetical Conversation with Julius Knapp, Chief of OET
Date: 2/8/2007 12:48:20p

What should I say next time I'm before people like Julie Knapp, who
heads OET. Here is a potential script:

Me - Good morning sir, congratulations on earning the Chief position.

Julie - Thank you Patrick. What's on your mind?

Me - Julie, we could really use more spectrum for UL.

Wrong.   More spectrum for unlicensed isn't needed.   Spectrum which can be 
used to convey high speed data services at reasonable cost by UBIQUITOUS SMALL 
BUSINESSES to fill in the gaps in both space and market which the large and 
corporate world will never fill, and to be competition for them where they do.  
 Yes, we'd like it to not be owned spectrum, so the big guys c an't buy it 
all up and lock out the low overhead competition.


Julie - Well, you already have 589.5 megahertz total from pieces
between 902 MHz to 5.7850 GHz.

Yes, there's a lot of spectrum for baby monitors, garage door openers, in-house 
lans, cordless phones, wireless tv cameras, and so on.But since it was 
never created for the purpose of high speed data services, it is NOT for 
broadband and data services, but generalized unlicensed.   So, while much use 
has been made of this spectrum, it's spectrum for these purposes that is needed.


Me - Yes, that's true and we do appreciate it and know you have been a
personal champion for UL spectrum, but we need more so we can build
networks that will permit self-installation even in rural areas.

Julie - Ah, you want that beachfront stuff with high power. Well,
looking at how many WISPs can't be trusted to follow the rules, there is
considerable risk for that, especially with the broadcasters, who tend
to be a vocal and frankly powerful lobby.

Me - I can imagine. I'd like to see Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner in a
mud wrestling match - well clothed of course. But back to the WISPs,
they don't follow the rules because you guys don't enforce the rule.

This is why organizations like Motorola continue to lobby against WISP 
interests.   The rules, which were created for entirely different purposes, 
have been and continue to be a huge obstruction to innovation and industry 
advancement.   Many have gone around them in an effort to try to be 
competitive...or even function at all.


Julie - Nice visual, thanks...So you are telling me that a principal
characteristic of your market is that operators will only do what's
right if they know someone is looking?

Me - No, not all. Yes many, and I admit that even many leader WISPs
believe that is an acceptable attitude so long as power rules aren't
violated.

Julie - So you are saying they pick and choose the rules they are
prepared to tolerate versus those we require?

Me - Well, yeah, pretty much that's what they do. They argue among
themselves about which rules they think matter.

Well, Patrick, at this point you have a choice.   You can become an advocate of 
the WISP business and explain WHY rule reform and spectrum is vital to the 
survival of the industry, or you can use your present and past fallback 
position, that your company's margins and market should be protected by the 
excessive, obstructive, and unworkable Part-15 rules structure, and that only 
the big players have a 'right' to be in the market and that those few who 
venture into the WISP business should be funded such that it keeps your bottom 
line nice and fat in spite of the huge costs structure built in place.


Julie - Yes, so I know. Interesting attitude. I hear there's been lots
of arguing lately about lots of things and what is required of them even
though we have been clear, like CALEA, Form 477, the purposes of an STA,
etc,

Yes, you should explain that the FCC injecting themselves into an unregulated 
business, is a lot like the federal governmnet coming along and demanding that 
bicycle repairmen file federal reports and report the services they provide to 
their customers.   For one, they have no idea there's such regulations...and 
two, you have no such business doing this.


Me - What can I say? They believe as small players filling what they
see as a gap that they should be allowed some leeway so they can save
money.

Julie - Did you tell them that the latest data shows 90% of all U.S.
zip codes have at least two broadband providers? The gaps aren't so big
anymore.

So, is the FCC engaged in the business of protecting the biggest operators, or 
are they in the business of serving the people,  providing relevant regulation 
and promoting competition and services?


Me - Well there ARE still holes WITHIN those zip codes Julie.

Julie - For the short term, yes.

Me - Yeah, so what abou...

Julie - No.

Me - Excuse me sir? No what?

Julie - No more hanging my ass out on a limb for a community that I
generally love for their passion and can-do attitude. No, 

[WISPA] A modest proposal

2007-02-09 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

In all this conversation...  the big guys wanting stiff enforcement to protect 
them from the death by a thousand cuts as small guys innovate by making their 
own equipment, and the arguments over the government's enforcement ability or 
will, sort of miss the point.

We need regulations that make sense for this industry.

kWe need Vivato-proof regulatory rules, so that money can't buy anyone an 
advantage in the ability to deploy technology by lawyering their way into 
certification, what is an obvious fraud to the system.

Device certification, as opposed to system.   It makes absolutely NO sense to 
certify a box with a 24 db panel, but object if someone needs to use a 21 db 
grid due to space or wind loading needs.   Or vice versa.

DEVICE certification let's there be 1000 innovators and developers figure out 
how to do do things better, and not incur huge costs for every tiny step along 
the way.

So, if we use certified 20 dbm radio device, certified 16 db sector, then we 
have a 36 dbm system, do we not?

This would do what we ALL want done, to know that what we buy is really what we 
get.

This provides a solid basis and precedent for innovation and compliance in tv 
whitespace, etc.

So you want to produce a radio that works at 4.9 ghz?   Great.  Certify it's 
behavior and let integrators use it however they wish.   Why must the FCC care 
if the box it is in varies from deployment to deployment?

This provides a great future framework for rapid innovation in wireless, be it 
unlicensed, low cost license, or normal licensed.   It reduces the cost of 
compliance dramatically...  and will have the effect of making enforcement 
workable and compliance both easy and cost effective without stifling 
innovation, or limiting it to the unimaginative like Motorola and Trango.

The current regulatory structure encourages non-compliance...  And the obvious 
lack of enforcement is tacit admission of the both the wrongness of the 
structure...and it's obvious problems.   We SHOULD encourage both a framework 
that leads to compliance AND at the same time makes it no longer an obstruction 
to competition and cost-effective innovation.

We need MORE integrators and builders, not less.   We need to let ANYONE find 
creative ways to make a better mouse trap, not restrict to the biggest builders 
who then nail us with big dollars.

This meets everyone's legitmate goals.   It encourages outside the US 
manufacturers who want to build 100,000 radios to spread the certification  
costs among 100,000 units.  Not 25 integrators each certifying the same radio 
with a different pigtail and antenna.

WE need certified antennas that have patterns that are known good, so we don't 
deploy with bad patterns and ugly leakages.

It provides a discipline for manufacturers.  It lets a maker like Advanced 
Antennas or PacWireless focus on producing and marketing to the WISP community 
without having to try to get the same antenna certified 20, 40, 100 times just 
on different transmitters or even just different enclosures or connectors.  Or 
a company like Ubiquiti have a legitemate place in the public marketplace to 
WISP's and not just a small handful of big dollar integrators.

We need MORE suppliers, not less.  More choices, not less.  More options, not 
fewer, more innovation and minds creating, not less.

THAT is how we as an industry can beat the dollars of the big guys.  More 
minds, more thought, more creativity, more imagination.



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Muni networks, the good, bad and ugly

2007-01-10 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Muni networks, the good, bad and ugly


 Mark,

 Many if not most RFP's today require a percentage of accounts be
 discounted heavily or given away for just the reasons you are describing.

I don't see any relevance at all.


 The term “Digital Inclusion” is used in this document to describe the
 goal of expanding the capabilities of computing technology worldwide to
 better serve social and economic challenges of underserved communities,
 both rural and urban.

Nice political buzzwords, but does not address why a community or region is
economically backward by comparison to it's surround, or the nation on
average.   The digital divide makes for wonderful thesis writing and great
political speeches and a useful football to kick hither and yon and make
tons of political yardage.My experience is that the digital divide is
far more self-imposed than politically, economically, or socially.
Success for an individual is far less dependent upon things like computers
and broadband, than it is upon basic education, understanding money and
economics, and a mindset seeking opportunity.

Those who have the means, and have found ways to utilize it, have made
broadband a part of their life... It has become indispensable to THEM.
Millions of successful people have not.  Neither is superior to the other.


 If you would get off your own train and look around and maybe read a
 thing or two on this subject maybe you would understand this a little
 better.

Maybe I'm ignorant, but as a long time user of broadband, salesman  for
broadband connections, and operator of a broadband network, and a good
communicator with the scores of customers I have hooked up, understanding
what and how they use their connection, I would guess I have at least some
clues.   There are lots of statistical correlations between bad economic
conditions and a lack of broadband.   There's a lot of words being pushed
about how broadband is essential or even being sold as the driver for
economic revitalization or improvement in these areas.  I completely
disagree with that notion, because my experience is that economic
improvement will result in more people buying broadband, and then making use
of it in ways that improve thier economic conditions.

We're talking chicken and egg here... what causes what.   The fact is,
many things usually need to change in an area to improve the economic
conditions... Broadband, while useful and helpful, does not drive these
changes, nor will supplying it WITHOUT those other factors accomplish much
of anything.Just as building a superhighway to a town where nobody can
afford a car doesn't do a lot of useful things...  There comes a time when,
if economic conditions improve, that highway would be needed.   Economic
revitalization or enhancement where it is needed can include broadband,
provided that the fundamental issues of economics are addressed, and that
market driven supply and demand create the need and then fulfill that
need...




+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Muni networks, the good, bad and ugly

2007-01-10 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Muni networks, the good, bad and ugly


 Mark,

 How does YOUR view address the real competition that towns have to
 attract new business?
 Bad roads? That's everywhere.
 Lousy schools? Uh, again everywhere.

I really don't see your point.


 But you can't fix either without a tax base and a working (paycheck
 collecting) community.

 Many companies tele-source call center jobs. But not without BB.
 Medical, Legal, and Court Transcriptionists - all home based, good
 paying jobs that require BB.

yes, but these are not curealls for bad local economies.We moved a huge
one in locally... didn't do a blasted thing for our community.  Instead, it
attracted a lot of unskilled and otherwise barely employable people to work
at low paying jobs that really did not make them upwardly mobile.

Those people who DID advance in the company... paid their dues and improved
themselves simply left the area... either to other companies or other
offices of the same organization.Overall, it appears to have become more
of a brain drain to our community than an improvement.   Funny how that all
works out.

Mind you, I am NOT one of these people who wishes they weren't here.In
the overall scheme of things, I think unemployment dropped a bit, and in the
global view, a few people got employed and improved their lives who
otherwise would not done so.   It did not, however, become any great benefit
to the local community, which invested millions of dollars to attract it
here.   The backbone of our area is small business...  The real success
stories have not turned out be driven by high tech, but instead by
creative people thinking up ways to do stuff with what they had.


 Granted I live in Tampa, but I have lived in NC and CT as well.
 Cities and towns are struggling to compete for stores and jobs with not
 just other cities and towns but other nations.

 - Peter


+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Muni networks, the good, bad and ugly

2007-01-10 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
Don't worry, Dawn :)

I never for a moment thought you had any offense intended.And even if
you did... heh, I certainly won't remember it tomorrow...

You're all one install from being forgotten, as when I'm busy, I don't
really think about the subjects on this list... Just the stuff I learn.

:)

+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

- Original Message - 
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Muni networks, the good, bad and ugly


 Mark,

 I did overstep my bounds a little and do apologize for the last
 statement in my post.

 Regards,
 Dawn DiPietro

 Dawn DiPietro wrote:

  Mark,
 
  Many if not most RFP's today require a percentage of accounts be
  discounted heavily or given away for just the reasons you are
describing.
 
  The term “Digital Inclusion” is used in this document to describe the
  goal of expanding the capabilities of computing technology worldwide
  to better serve social and economic challenges of underserved
  communities, both rural and urban.
 
  If you would get off your own train and look around and maybe read a
  thing or two on this subject maybe you would understand this a little
  better.
 
  Regards,
  Dawn DiPietro
 
 
 
  Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
 
  - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 6:13 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Muni networks, the good, bad and ugly
 
 
 
 
  There are numerous studies that demonstrate that towns that lack
  broadband are economically deficient compared to towns with broadband.
  Job growth, tax base increase, home value stability, higher per capita
  income.
 
 
 
  The economic deficiency drives the lack of broadband, not the other way
  around.
 
  You can't raise the dog to life by wagging it's tail.
 
  I live in one of those towns, and have many of them in the region
  surrounding me.   Broadband is not the issue.  The economic
  conditions are
  driven ENTIRELY by other factors.Just like poor roads don't help,
  a lack
  of connectivity may be some hindrance, but building a superhighway to a
  depressed community will simply NOT create magic.Broadband
  brought to
  these places may have some neglible impact, but the lack is not  the
  cause
  of economic problems, nor will provisioning it fix things.
 
  Unfortunately, too many people are riding this train.Politicians
are
  holding it out as a fix ( BB access has never hurt a town's
  economy, of
  course) for things when it isn't, and lots of businessmen are
exploiting
  that for thier own pocketbooks.   The people who are being sold this
  are the
  unwitting victims.   They need real solutions to other real problems,
  and
  ignoring them and offering fashionable modern services as a fix is a
red
  herring...
 
 
 
  +++
  neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East
  Washington
  email me at mark at neofast dot net
  541-969-8200
  Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net
 
 
 
 

 -- 
 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] Muni networks, the good, bad and ugly

2007-01-10 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
Interestingly enough, the town I used to live in, just a few miles from me,
offers discounted water, garbage sewer, AND electricity as an economic
incentive.   Certainly, the wisdom of our forefathers in investing in future
electrical production paid off handsomely in the lives of the people of the
city.   However,  that town routinely loses businesses to across the border
to a much larger town just 12 miles away, for all sorts of reasons.

The biggest reasons have almost always been outside the c ontrol of the
city...   LAnd use laws imposed by hte state, state income tax and tax
policies, and some are just physical...  location, for instance.

When all is said and done, I think a lot more gets said than done, but the
best successes are individuals or organizations that use their brains more
than average.


+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

- Original Message - 
From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 10:07 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Muni networks, the good, bad and ugly


 I'll agree with Mark on this.  There are many that are exploiting city
 counsel's across the country to only line their own pockets.  I have read
 about one muni-wifi failure after another...point me to a real success
 story.  As a percentage my guess is the failures far, far outweigh the
 successes.

 If a city wants to drive business and people to their community then how
 about offering free water or free garbage pickup instead of free Internet.
 How about offering lower taxes?

 Let the city offer something free to drive people into the community that
 EVERYONE can benefit from.  After all the Internet is only for the 'rich',
 right?  grin

 Brad




 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
 Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 11:21 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Muni networks, the good, bad and ugly

 Mark,

 Many if not most RFP's today require a percentage of accounts be
 discounted heavily or given away for just the reasons you are describing.

 The term Digital Inclusion is used in this document to describe the
 goal of expanding the capabilities of computing technology worldwide to
 better serve social and economic challenges of underserved communities,
 both rural and urban.

 If you would get off your own train and look around and maybe read a
 thing or two on this subject maybe you would understand this a little
 better.

 Regards,
 Dawn DiPietro



 Mark Koskenmaki wrote:

 - Original Message - 
 From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 6:13 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Muni networks, the good, bad and ugly
 
 
 
 
 There are numerous studies that demonstrate that towns that lack
 broadband are economically deficient compared to towns with broadband.
 Job growth, tax base increase, home value stability, higher per capita
 income.
 
 
 
 The economic deficiency drives the lack of broadband, not the other way
 around.
 
 You can't raise the dog to life by wagging it's tail.
 
 I live in one of those towns, and have many of them in the region
 surrounding me.   Broadband is not the issue.  The economic conditions
are
 driven ENTIRELY by other factors.Just like poor roads don't help, a
 lack
 of connectivity may be some hindrance, but building a superhighway to a
 depressed community will simply NOT create magic.Broadband brought to
 these places may have some neglible impact, but the lack is not  the
cause
 of economic problems, nor will provisioning it fix things.
 
 Unfortunately, too many people are riding this train.Politicians are
 holding it out as a fix ( BB access has never hurt a town's economy, of
 course) for things when it isn't, and lots of businessmen are exploiting
 that for thier own pocketbooks.   The people who are being sold this are
 the
 unwitting victims.   They need real solutions to other real problems, and
 ignoring them and offering fashionable modern services as a fix is a red
 herring...
 
 
 
 +++
 neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East
Washington
 email me at mark at neofast dot net
 541-969-8200
 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net
 
 
 

 -- 
 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

Re: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year...

2007-01-06 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
 anything else.   So, can someone point me to a residential
router that's...  idgitproof?   I can't find any that don't raise the price
of that Alvarion radio 50 bucks or more, and even then, I haven't a smidgeon
of faith in any of them.   The models come and go like the wind.If I
were selling telecom grade services with an SLA, you think I'd choose what I
have?   Of course not.   But if I were,  letting the customer own and run
his own router wouldn't be any particular issue, then, would it?   I'd
reasonably expect they had in-house staff to do it, or they'd ask me to
contract the service.   A whole different market and assumptions.


 I am personally really glad to see Alvarion taking a more involved
 interest in the WISP market.  I think they have recognized that they can
 learn a lot from some of the cowboys out there.  Just remember that we
 can learn a lot from them as well.

Well, I am too.   Maybe they'll stop  trying to dictate a network has to be
run stupidly and start recognizing that the WISP market is diverse and
ranges from the high end telecom type networks to low end residential, and
there's one hell of a lot more residences to serve than high end customers.

Heck, I don't even dream of putting business customers on a network designed
and priced for profitable residential service at a COMPETITIVE price.   And
every customer I have so far has pretty much agreed.   I tell them right up
front that my competitor offers that higher end service with gaurantees
and all that, and none that I am aware of has ever switched or chosen the
competition.It's all about knowing who you're selling to and what you're
selling.

What if Alvarion got a brain fart and decided to build that good enough
cpe for residential use, with all the functions of a router, with the good
RF stuff they learned from the RD to make the high end stuff?   Would it
kill them?   Heck no.   The telcos, the cablecos, they know that residential
has a price point, and they put far lesser crap on the desktop than what I
have now.   Heck, it could only HELP the market, not hurt it.

I had a  conversation a couple weeks ago with some people who've never heard
of this list and never heard of what I use.  They're offering big time
financing.  They asked me what's your most valuable asset and I said my
customers.   I passed.   He said that 95% of WISP operators say my
network.I have never operated under the illusion that my star-os based
backbone is goign to be adequate for a large customer base. But that
customer base is going to be one customer at a time, one access point at a
time,  with lots of them not fully built out because of where I am and what
my market is like.But for now, it is adequate and by the time I need to
do that upgrade... I'll have the cash flow to pay for it.And my
assumptions about how long it will last, and that answering the question of
how will I pay for it has proven to be not only right, but it's better
than I had hoped.

Heck, I'm going to have 200 customers and not even have a secretary or an
office (other than my van), just a workshop / storage building and manage it
just fine.  Scale?  Well, yes.  Sufficently for what I'm doing.   And,
whether you think so or not,  for a LOT of people serving residential
broadband.




 Matt Larsen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]


 Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
  - Original Message - 
  From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 12:52 AM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
 
 
 
  When a market knows it must contend with fraudulent product AND that a
  good percentage of that market will support the fraud, what's the
  decision you think vendors will make when it comes to prioritizing
  investments in this business? Licensed or unlicensed? WISPs or a market
  segment that buys only legal product? For Pete's sake people, you think
  your actions don't have actual consequences just because you are
staying
  within the legal power limits? Some of you make guys make the jobs of
  guys like me who seriously give a rip real, real hard.
 
 
  Aw, give it a rest, Patrick.
 
  Valemount's product runs rings around many in terms of features.So,
how
  many MILLIONS would it take for Alvarion to produce a box that does what
  WISP's need it to do?   Not even as much as you spend producing stuff
that
  costs too much for some to use.
 
  So, exactly WHO is to blame when software vendor X produces what we
REALLY
  need, hardware vendor Y produces what we REALLY need,  and the people
who
  want to have the secret black boxes  with unknown guts under the hood
  won't listen and learn?
 
  The fact is, that the little guy... the Joe Blow Schmuck is 5 X more
capable
  of figuring out what it is he wants than a whole team of highly paid
product
  developers who won't listen.   While you may get engineers to figure out
  every last possible means of adjusting the 802.11 MAC and doing

Re: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year...

2007-01-06 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
Patrick, I hope you understand something... I have no animosity towards
anyone...  But I really do want to light a fire under people.   Too many
companies (even me at times) gets too stuck in the box and we forget to
look beyond.

From our past conversations, you should realize what a large step it is for
me to say I strongly consider your VL product under the Comnet program.
But you have to understand that to do so has certain operational downsides
for me as well. I'm not a mathmatician, but the way I see it, if my
network backbone is 99% reliable, and my cpe is 99% reliable, I'm only 98%
reliable.   I have found that physical site issues have had far more to do
with downtime and difficult installs, and customer issues, than the network
at all.

Generally, the network hums along wtihout intervention or attention.
Customers do not.  They forget passwords, they unplug stuff, they install
home routers and put them on the same channel I'm on,  they DO THESE THINGS.

My issues have, in my unscientific estimation been:

1.  Customer self-inflicted - perhaps about 20% of all things
2.  Errors on my part (yeah, misconfiguring a router or other such bonehead
goofs) - 15%
3.  Downtime due to hardware failures:  10% - this includes power supplies,
UPS,  burned out batteries, etc sudden radio or networking equipment death
that's really unexplained.
4.  Physical failure of customer end equipment:  10%.   Lightning and power
issues.
5.  acts of Nature:  5%.

The rest is just...  stuff happens.   breaker burns out and takes a
circuit offline and I have no power to a remote site.
Bugs got into a pc case and somehow or other managed to short out the ram.
Power supply burned out or otherwise just croaked.  ( 3 times in  months )
Wire near the storage batteries somehow got exposed to acid and just parted
at a random moment.
Some uknown person fired up an extremely strong signal and took down the 5
ghz backhauls, and each time I moved to clear air, so did he.  Then, the
interference stopped mysteriously a couple months ago.   My competitor and I
have been unable to locate this interference, we communicated considerably
on the topic, decided it seemed deliberate, but we never found the source.
BTW, it took down his Trango stuff.
Competitor pulled the CPE apart and managed to mangle putting it back
together, taking the customer offline.



So...  If you have suggestions on how to cut down on the stuff happens,
that would do the most.   Certainly,  improved attention my part would
elimenate 2, and some of 3 and possibly 4,  I take my gambles, it's worked
out.

But if you're going to say that dramatically increased CPE quality or
lifespan would transform my network's reliability...  It won't.  Improve?
Of course.  But no real big issue at the moment.yeah, I want better QOS
for VOIP applications... but will my customers pay $15 more a month so I can
buy them a router and higher end stuff?   Probably not.

So where do you thread the needle? If you had all the neato RF goodies
and enhancements to the MAC, but also included routing and dynamic routing
and DHCP and NAT and so on... Man, that would be one heck of a hard thing to
resist.   There would be no compromise other than dollars, and it's far
eaiser, in my book, to compromise a small amount of dollars than it is
certain fundamental network characteristics.Heck, at the lowest price
you quote, there's no dollar issue to me, just a large hurdle for those
smaller POP's (ap cost and some issues revolving around power consumption -
my God, havn't you guys learned how to use lower power consumption stuff
yet ).

Heck, Trango and Motorola haven't even been considered, due to mostly the
same thing.

Someone asked me what I wanted that nearly 3 years ago when I was getting
ready to put my first stuff up and I made a list.

Someone filled the stuff on that list before you did.  Now down the road
with experience under my  belt the only thing I really wish for that I don't
have is better QOS capability for voip and a little better price. Would
it really kill Alvarion to stop reinventing the wheel and base something on
mass production in the outside world and apply thier skills to a full blown
SOLUTION for residential use?   Of course not.Are they even considering
something with the capabilities of a WAR board cpe?

I have my doubts.Are they stuck in the box?


+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:59 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year...


 Well that was worth staying up to read! Man, thanks Matt.

 ...and Mark, you might be surprised that I am harder and more pushy on
 our PMs about features WISPs 

Re: [WISPA] Brad B, I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS VL

2007-01-05 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
You qualify as young whippersnapper to me :)

heheheheheheh


+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 2:17 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Brad B,I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS
VL


 Sigh. I guess at 42 I qualify for old man to some of you
whipper-snappers!

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year...

2007-01-05 Thread Mark Koskenmaki


- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 12:52 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...


 When a market knows it must contend with fraudulent product AND that a
 good percentage of that market will support the fraud, what's the
 decision you think vendors will make when it comes to prioritizing
 investments in this business? Licensed or unlicensed? WISPs or a market
 segment that buys only legal product? For Pete's sake people, you think
 your actions don't have actual consequences just because you are staying
 within the legal power limits? Some of you make guys make the jobs of
 guys like me who seriously give a rip real, real hard.

Aw, give it a rest, Patrick.

Valemount's product runs rings around many in terms of features.So, how
many MILLIONS would it take for Alvarion to produce a box that does what
WISP's need it to do?   Not even as much as you spend producing stuff that
costs too much for some to use.

So, exactly WHO is to blame when software vendor X produces what we REALLY
need, hardware vendor Y produces what we REALLY need,  and the people who
want to have the secret black boxes  with unknown guts under the hood
won't listen and learn?

The fact is, that the little guy... the Joe Blow Schmuck is 5 X more capable
of figuring out what it is he wants than a whole team of highly paid product
developers who won't listen.   While you may get engineers to figure out
every last possible means of adjusting the 802.11 MAC and doing really cool
stuff with it, who's to blame for thinking we should BRIDGE our networks
together?If Schmuck A can figure out how to build a workable board in
China, Schmuck B can find some great working little mini-pci radios with
INDUSTRY STANDARD connectors on both the cpu board and the card and Schmuck
C can figure out how to put a FREE OS together and then develop some drivers
to do the cool RF stuff, and all the rest of us dullard schmucks are still
bright enough to figure out how to PUT THEM ALL TOGETHER and use them to
dramatic advantage over what the engineers and developers keep trying to
foist on us...  Exactly WHO is to blame?

Maybe we're collectivley to blame because we didn't pony 200 bucks up each
and get some lab to FCC certify the assembly?I dunno.   Exactly WHOSE
fault is that?I dunno.   I don't know that it's even our fault at all.
Maybe the laws need to be updated to reflect the reality of the industry and
the state of our technology.


 So then while I congratulate Lonnie's innovation, he needs to come clean
 and go legal.

Lonnie's not doing a dang thing illegal.Well, I hope he's not.   Maybe
he secretly runs stop signs on some back road in a fit of legal defiance...
but certainly neither you nor I would know, now would we?

Sorry Lonnie, but yes if you are doing this it does gall
 me. It galls me when folks outside our borders go around the legal paths
 to our market. It's cheesy. It's dishonest. It's anti-competitive.

Well, Patrick, I AM WITHIN OUR BORDERS and I am going around YOUR borders
because I can produce something far better suited to what I need than all
your engineers and developers combined.   Now tell me, how the bloody hell
that's possible?Am I some evil monster because I can install an OS on a
board, snap in a minipci card, seal it up in a NEMA4X enclosure and mount it
on a rooftop to get me a freaking bloody WORKING CPE   One that costs
more, but pays because it has the features and performance and reliability
that exceeds some certified products from some manufacturers?

 And
 it's simply illegal. You've done all the work, why not go legal? If not,
 do you have any right to complain if someone copies your soft work and
 sells it as his own? Or do you think, Hey, that's different, he's
 damaging me!

Well, hell, now you've got it all laid out for you.   Will we see the $185
linux powered, changeable radio module,  poe, weatherproof rooftop box, AP,
backhaul, etc, w/ all the needed features Alvarion product announced on July
4, 07?With all the RF knowledge and board design and chipset experience
and programming capabilities that Alvarion SHOULD have in-house, this ought
to be a no-brainer walk in the park, right?


 You guys may not like the rules, but they are there and the rest of us
 have to abide by them and incur all the expense required to play by the
 rules.

 And if you are an operator reading this, do you really think staying
 under the legal power limit makes you righteous? It makes you no more
 righteous that a guy beside you on the tower that does a beautiful NEC
 poster child of an install but does not have legal right to use the
 tower.

 I know many find this attitude insulting and I know as a vendor I'm
 supposed to just hold my tongue so as not to piss people off, because
 there will be those who might say, Because of that attitude I've never
 buy one Alvarion 

[WISPA] 900 Mhz and snow and Pacwireless Yagi's.

2007-01-04 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
I have one 900 mhz ap and one client.   When I first set up this client, we
were decidedly NOT LOS and it goes through a few pine and fir trees.

Im not sure that is only what is in the way.Possibly a bit of dirt,
too.For some reason, I appear to have HUGE changes in RSSI.

It appears when we get to around 28 or so, or below, the signal comes up to
what it was when we installed.   That is, around -80 to -85.   When it gets
warm, it appears to fall into the mid -90's... or, basically not working.

Will wet snow on Pac Yagis cause signal loss?

Does frozen snow on trees block less than wet (melting?) snow on trees?

I'm really frustrated with this particular setup, as we've had NOTHING but
trouble...




+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] 5.3/5.8 GHz Antenna Suggestion

2006-12-31 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
My experience as well.The mount is wayyy to flimsy.

Equinox has some much heavier duty mounts which I hope to get my hands on in
a week or two.   They would fix that flimsy thing right up and make it quite
solid.

I have seen an example of one that wasn't for the grids, and they are
incredibly solid.



+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

- Original Message - 
From: Tim Kerns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 5.3/5.8 GHz Antenna Suggestion


 Mac,
 Have PacWireless made any changes to the mount on the 29db grids... I have
4
 in use and the mount isn't very solid. The grid deflects a lot in the
wind.
 I can watch the signal go up and down as it moves.
 Tim Kerns
 CV-Access, Inc.

 - Original Message - 
 From: Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 12:53 PM
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] 5.3/5.8 GHz Antenna Suggestion


 I do use their dishes where I have a large enough tower, water tower or a
  roof. I will tell ya though - - the 29dbi grids are mighty fine, much
less
  expensive than a solid dish, wind load is no comparison as well as the
  ease
  of mounting. If you are leasing tower space - - the grid is a no brainer
  unless you have to have the extra db that comes with a dish.
 
  Mac Dearman
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Mark Nash - Lists
  Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 2:28 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] 5.3/5.8 GHz Antenna Suggestion
 
  Are we preferring their grids to dishes?
 
  Mark Nash
  Network Engineer
  UnwiredOnline.Net
  350 Holly Street
  Junction City, OR 97448
  http://www.uwol.net
  541-998-
  541-998-5599 fax
  - Original Message - 
  From: Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 12:18 PM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] 5.3/5.8 GHz Antenna Suggestion
 
 
  Mark,
 
   I have several 8 mile 5.3GHz links (YMMV) using PacWireless 26dbi
grids,
  MT  CM9's. IMHO you can't go wrong using the PacWireless antennas. I
  have
  built a wireless network that covers 12% of Louisiana utilizing their
  antennas exclusively for my BH. Well - I do have several of the Trango
  dual
  polarity ext's.
 
  Mac Dearman
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Mark Nash - Lists
  Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 1:12 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: [WISPA] 5.3/5.8 GHz Antenna Suggestion
 
  I have usually used Trango backhauls, so I have not had to worry about
5
  GHz
 
  antennas and what to choose.  Now I'm going to try a MikroTik backhaul
  with
  a CM9.  Currently, I've got two applications:
 
  1. 2-mile link that I can perhaps use 5.3GHz over.
 
  2. 8-mile link that I'll go 5.8GHz over.
 
  What antennas have you used to accomplish links such as these...
 
  Also, kI have heard that the output power of the CM9 in a MikroTik can
be
  adjusted.  Experience?
 
  Mark Nash
  Network Engineer
  UnwiredOnline.Net
  350 Holly Street
  Junction City, OR 97448
  http://www.uwol.net
  541-998-
  541-998-5599 fax
 
 
 
  -- 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
  -- 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 
 
  -- 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
  -- 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 

 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

2006-12-29 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
That router, sitting about 12 inches from my monitor, is one of the most
failure prone, troublesome, annoying and horribly underperforming piles of
JUNK I have ever laid eyes upon.

Yeah, my HOUSE is not on my own wireless network...  And at the end of a day
with that router locking up more than a half dozen times, simply going
offline 1-5 times, and other inexplicable oddness (yes,  I acct ually own
2 of these actiontec piles of junk and this is the BETTER one of the two), I
can barely spit out the word Qwest without wanting to punch or strangle
someone.  To think that my CPE will often have uptimes in the months, with
uptimes being interrupted purely by power outages, I can't exactly profess
much faith in consumer routers, in comparison to the stuff I put on
someone's roof.

I recently ran across one of my cpe I logged into by mistake (typo on the
ip) and found the uptime matched almost to the day I recall replacing it due
to a lightning strike - just about 6 months.   My gateway and backhaul often
goes 4-6 months (and once got nearly 300 days) of uptime before a radio
crash required a reboot.

Build me a solution that works as reliably and solidly as these things I put
together myself and you got something...really got something.



+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

- Original Message - 
From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...




 Butch Evans wrote:
   It is my contention (and yours, it seems) that a router
  at the CPE is necessary.
 

 BINGO.

 Qwest DSL has a router at every customer. Ever taken a look at what
 those Actiontec wireless dsl routers do...

 As we stated in an earlier thread, those pesky routers matter more than
 our cpes, to the customer.


 -- 
 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] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

2006-12-29 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:51 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...


 Right guys, I accept all that may be true but even in the DSL world,
 customers provide their own routers and that is certainly true of
 commercial customers.

What planet do you live on?   Every DSL service I have seen in a LONG time
provides the dsl modem and router together as one device.


 In any event, VL does many of things for which you think make a router
 so critical. Even better, it does a lot of them at the RF level which
 makes the link and total network more efficient. Frankly though, I need
 one of my engineers in this type conversation; I'm just not technically
 competent enough on the networking side (and barely so in the nitty
 gritty of the RF side).

You  can't do routing, dhcp, firewalling, etc, at the RF level.


 At the same token, many here that are truly skilled remain under exposed
 on the RF side since most have not used truly sophisticated gear that
 allows for depths of tweaking beyond that which you have experienced.

What I use may not be sophisticated by your standards.   But if we look at
the overall picture,  attaching that high priced RF equipment to a linksys
router is like transplanting a pinto engine and gas tank into a humvee...

Frankly, I can't find that elusive somewhere between linksys and belkin
and the other end where imagestream and cisco live - well, except for what
I use... Which costs less and is dead reliable and excellent performing.


I
 have never encountered an old hand who, once thoroughly exposed to our
 firmware in a scaled system, did not say something along the lines of,
 Wow, I did not know that sort of thing could be even be done! or You
 mean that's all we have to do to do that? That always took me hours
 before! Basically, I think many of you have trained and become good
 street racers, but you've not yet become real race car drivers because
 you are still driving souped up street cars not realizing a real race
 car actually IS different.

Certainly most of us who deal with wifi-based gear are very much aware of
the limitations of the rf side of this setup.   It's no mystery, Patrick and
I think you grossly underestimate what we understand in that regard.
Perhaps alvarion c ould get into the business of providing a REAL mini-pci
radio, certified with various antennas, and then we'd have the better of
both worlds...




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

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of George Rogato
 Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:25 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...



 Butch Evans wrote:
   It is my contention (and yours, it seems) that a router
  at the CPE is necessary.
 

 BINGO.

 Qwest DSL has a router at every customer. Ever taken a look at what
 those Actiontec wireless dsl routers do...

 As we stated in an earlier thread, those pesky routers matter more than
 our cpes, to the customer.


 -- 
 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/



 
 
 This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
 PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
 computer viruses(190).
 
 







 
 
 This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
 PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
 computer viruses(43).
 
 











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






 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

2006-12-28 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
I happen to use his software, and assemble hardware from various vendors,
including him.

I am scrupulously careful to be within the 2.4 and 5.8 eirp rules ( well
under all limits) and don't deploy wild and crazy configs.   I suppose I am
illegal, but then recently I visited a consultant who had a cisco AP and
1 watt amp and 12 db omni on his roof.   That was to overcome the WISP's
linksys (I think) router and 1 watt amp and 15 db omni a couple blocks over
on their roof...To be lumped into that kind of wild and idiotic (and
very illegal) bunch is rather insulting, Patrick...

IF someone built a product that would perform anywhere near as well and had
anywhere NEAR the features, I might consider buying it.As much as I am
intrigued by your VL product, every time I look at it, I remind myself that
in order to be even workable,  I have to buy and configure a router at the
customer's end, because as best I can tell,  the CPE is just a bridge as is
the AP, which makes a REAL headache at the remote sites where space and
power at an extreme premium and are powered by solar or wind or a
combination.Another box that has to be maintained, another point of
failure, yet another box to configure and install at the customer's end.
And then there has to be a router at the AP end, complete with DHCP server,
or we do like others, and start screwing around with vlans, etc, in order to
overcome the essential features deficit built into things like VL and
Trango.

When you offer that $230 - $280 client that is certified and has at minimum
the following features:

Full routing.  (both client and AP)
Bandwidth control.
QOS.
Firewalling.
DNS server for client's use.
DHCP server (both client and AP)
Multiple network interfaces (just plug in the rf module for 1 to 4 radios
and already contains 1- 4 ethernet ports)
bandwidth or data transfer tracking
ping and other utilities
bandwidth testing from any point to any other point on the network
RIP, OSPF, OLSR, BGP capabilities

Then you may make things like Mikrotik or Star-OS obsolete.. Until then,
you're peddling a half solution to WISP's - or that's how it feels to
those of us who have built our networks on them.

BTW, you never did answer my questions about how all the neat RF features of
VL overcome, help, or prevent various issues.

You mentioned a lot of adjustments, but did not explain what the effect of
these things are on the things we see that affect our similar networks - if
you can muck with them, but they don't do what we think we need, or if we
don't understand what they can accomplish... then reciting the list amounts
to ball joints as an advanced feature of a Ferarri...



+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:18 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...


 Lonnie,

 Not sure why you are fired up. Your product is software that gets loaded
 into hardware so I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about illegal
 hardware and what is untrue about what I said about illegal hardware
 suppliers?

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

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler
 Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:02 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

 Patrick,

 This is simply the LOWEST blow I have EVER seen you throw.  You have
 always been an Evangelist and I have seen you come and go from several
 lists, while me and my people have survived legal blind sides and we
 have outlived several LARGER companies.

 Yep, pretty low.  Plus it did not answer the question.  I feel I
 cannot jump in since I am too close to the product and thus might be
 seen as self serving.  What is your excuse?


 Lonnie


 On 12/28/06, Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   I mean, besides simply being illegal, such a vendor has
  no quality controls, they can also just up and walk away from you and
  quit anytime, they have no accountability, and it throws away your
  investment from an equity standpoint.
 
 
  Patrick Leary
  AVP WISP Markets
  Alvarion, Inc.
  o: 650.314.2628
  c: 760.580.0080
  Vonage: 650.641.1243
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On
  Behalf Of Butch Evans
  Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:00 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
 
  On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Patrick Leary wrote:
 
  Why not stick with Tranzeo or one of the other legal
  (FCC-certified) brands?
 
  Good idea, Patrick, but 

Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

2006-12-26 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
They're about the same.

Pac does have the extra-heavy and extra long version, and I don't know if
Equinox matches that one or not.


+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

- Original Message - 
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived


 Grin  Keep your coax tools to yourself sir!

 As for the pipe, I've used both the equinox and pac wireless.  Pac has a
 much stronger product, hands down.  Unless the other guys finally caught
 up.

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



 - Original Message - 
 From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 6:36 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived


  HAH, yeah, I was digging rather irritatedly around the van looking for a
  10
  mm wrench on Monday as well... same thing.
 
  I normally do not carry metric tools out on my install rig...
 
  Early in the year, I'm going to pick up some Equinox universal mounts.
  Same long arm, heavy pipe...
 
  No 10 mm nuts... and a LOT less expensive.
 
  I'll split a case with ya, if you want :)
 
  Might even drive up there and stick a few needles in coax, if you want
:)
 
  ok ok, I won't.   :)
 
  Mark
 
 
 
  +++
  neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East
  Washington
  email me at mark at neofast dot net
  541-969-8200
  Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net
 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 2:23 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
 
 
  Grin, while I've certainly noticed Brad's almost religious dislike of
  Alvarion I do have to side with him on this.  I just called Ben Moore
at
  PacWireless yesterday to bitch about the new Sat. arm mounts he sent
me.
  They have some bizarre metric nut on the dang things.  Now I have to
  carry
  FOUR tools up the ladder.
 
  Why can't everyone use 7/16, 12mm?  Those are the same size  People
  have
  the same size bolts, it's just the damned nut size that they keep
  screwing
  with.
 
  If there's a standard out there, please stick with it.  We have enough
  things to remember to do without custom wiring standards or strange
  default
  username/password combos!
 
  Marlon
  (509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
  (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
  42846865 (icq)And I run my own
wisp!
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
  www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
 
 
 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 1:43 PM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
 
 
  The gaul of us to create a tight seal. I am sorry you are not able to
  figure out how to attach the connector Brad. Thousands of others seem
to
  manage just fine and when is the last time you ever heard of anyone
  complaining about water intrusion into a VL VPE or PoE line?
 
  It is simply amazing at the lengths you will go to find something to
  bitch about in your attempt to Aspen to switch to you personal vendor
of
  choice.
 
  Patrick Leary
  AVP WISP Markets
  Alvarion, Inc.
  o: 650.314.2628
  c: 760.580.0080
  Vonage: 650.641.1243
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Brad Belton
  Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 11:15 AM
  To: 'WISPA General List'
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
 
  Yep, the cable is pre-terminated in some odd non-code compliant pin
  configuration.  Oh, and pre-terminated due to the fact that the RJ45
  connector doesn't fit through the weather seal!  Just about a
millimeter
  too
  small!
 
  When are you guys going to start using the standard 568A or 568B pin
  color
  code and enlarge that weather seal so a RJ45 connector fits through it?
 
  Best,
 
 
  Brad
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Patrick Leary
  Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 10:31 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
 
  Thanks for the validation Marty. I

Re: [WISPA] once again, several of the key...

2006-12-26 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
Hopefully you understand all of those:)

Part of Marlon's issue with the basic 802.11 system is talked about below,
but of course, since it's there, the tuneability helps, but does not
resolve the issue.

I beleive Marlon's reference to CSMA / CA is two pronged.   While it's true
that recieved noise will block transmission, it also blocks reception of ACK
packets, meaning a double whammy.   During periods of high noise or
repetitive noise,  not only does the AP wait to transmit, it then fails to
beleive that the transmission was accepted.  After so many of thse failures,
it then renegotiates the rate at which it's connected and tries again.
While these are not the same process, they do link to each and occur in
cascade-type failure.

I have seen data on a nearly clear channel suddenly have a 200, 300 or more
ms interruption while this cascade occurs...  repettive noise, rate
renegotiations and contention window increases, and ack failures from weak
clients all cause all clients to have that momentary communication block.

I believe there have been quite a number of interesting means of addressing
this,  as I recall some products from Trango don't ack packets, but
instead allows the higher layer controls to ensure data integrity, while
some versions seem to have a mechanism to request retransmits.   There, of
course, are polling type systems, and so on.   Each has its perceived
strengths and weaknesses.

Overall, while what you post below is quite interesting, I doubt that most
of us (including me) fully grasp what tuning each of these parameters does
in real life and why you'd use them and under what circumstances.   Thus,
I really don't know what effect in real life all this ability to muck with
the works will have.   I have seen real world demonstrations of how
differring equipment using the exact same hardware, but different settings
for many of those settings performs dramatically different.   But not
understanding the full picture of what each does, I cannot estimate in my
mind their worth, nor how much they alleviate the various issues that are
part of the nature of 802.11 based systems.

I also don't see any mention of packet aggregation or hardware compression,
which would be wonderful things to have, and would improve the overall
life and performance of the system.

I believe what most of the respondents have at issue here is really the
reliance upon 802.11, which is simply NOT anywhere near great when it
comes to WISP use. Yes, it appears that you can raise the threshold for
ignoring noise, and you can tune the system to better cope with varioius
kind of situations - distance,  colocated small cells, etc.  And then the
high inefficiency that 802.11 introduces with it's ack mechanism and the
large amount of access point time spent doing nothing but passing time,
waiting for ACK packets.

Please understand, I am neither criticizing nor praising, it just appears to
me that people are talking past each other, and that neither I nor at least
some of the readers, really understand what real life value these things
have.


+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 10:20 AM
Subject: [WISPA] once again, several of the key...


 ...features that make VL NOT a basic CSMA/CA product.

 - Configurable Minimum and Maximum Contention Windows: The BreezeACCESS
 VL system uses a special mechanism based on detecting the presence of a
 carrier signal and analyzing the information contained in the
 transmissions of the AU to estimate the activity of other SUs served by
 the AU.) The available values are 0, 7, 15, 31, 63, 127, 255, 511 and
 1023. A value of 0 means that the contention window algorithm is not
 used and that the unit will attempt to access the medium immediately
 after a time equal to DIFS. The default min. value is 15. The default
 maximum is 1023.

 - Cell Distance Mode feature: The higher the distance of an SU from the
 AU that is serving it, the higher the time it takes for messages sent by
 one of them to reach the other. To ensure appropriate services to all
 SUs regardless of their distance from the AU while maintaining a high
 overall performance level, two parameters should be adapted to the
 distances of SUs from the serving AU: The time that a unit waits for a
 response message before retransmission (ACK timeout) should take into
 account the round trip propagation delay between the AU and the SU (The
 one-way propagation delay at 5 GHz is 3.3 microseconds per km/5
 microseconds per mile.). The higher the distance from the AU of the SU
 served by it, the higher the ACK timeout should be. The ACK timeout in
 microseconds is: 20+Distance (km)*2*3.3 or 20+Distance 

Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

2006-12-22 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
HAH, yeah, I was digging rather irritatedly around the van looking for a 10
mm wrench on Monday as well... same thing.

I normally do not carry metric tools out on my install rig...

Early in the year, I'm going to pick up some Equinox universal mounts.
Same long arm, heavy pipe...

No 10 mm nuts... and a LOT less expensive.

I'll split a case with ya, if you want :)

Might even drive up there and stick a few needles in coax, if you want :)

ok ok, I won't.   :)

Mark



+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

- Original Message - 
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived


 Grin, while I've certainly noticed Brad's almost religious dislike of
 Alvarion I do have to side with him on this.  I just called Ben Moore at
 PacWireless yesterday to bitch about the new Sat. arm mounts he sent me.
 They have some bizarre metric nut on the dang things.  Now I have to carry
 FOUR tools up the ladder.

 Why can't everyone use 7/16, 12mm?  Those are the same size  People
have
 the same size bolts, it's just the damned nut size that they keep screwing
 with.

 If there's a standard out there, please stick with it.  We have enough
 things to remember to do without custom wiring standards or strange
default
 username/password combos!

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



 - Original Message - 
 From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 1:43 PM
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived


 The gaul of us to create a tight seal. I am sorry you are not able to
 figure out how to attach the connector Brad. Thousands of others seem to
 manage just fine and when is the last time you ever heard of anyone
 complaining about water intrusion into a VL VPE or PoE line?

 It is simply amazing at the lengths you will go to find something to
 bitch about in your attempt to Aspen to switch to you personal vendor of
 choice.

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

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Brad Belton
 Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 11:15 AM
 To: 'WISPA General List'
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

 Yep, the cable is pre-terminated in some odd non-code compliant pin
 configuration.  Oh, and pre-terminated due to the fact that the RJ45
 connector doesn't fit through the weather seal!  Just about a millimeter
 too
 small!

 When are you guys going to start using the standard 568A or 568B pin
 color
 code and enlarge that weather seal so a RJ45 connector fits through it?

 Best,


 Brad



 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Patrick Leary
 Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 10:31 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

 Thanks for the validation Marty. I suspect that some might have thought
 there was a catch. I almost forgot that the cable was pre-terminated.
 That's one of the things we don't highlight enough -- VL CPE does not
 require hidden extra things to buy like power supplies, cable,
 connectors, mounting kits, and certainly not antennas.

 So what's the impact overall to you business model under the
 AlvarionCOMNET program?

 Pat
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Marty Dougherty
 Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 6:48 AM
 To: 'WISPA General List'
 Subject: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

 Well we got our 1st 100 pack of VL Su's under the Comnet program
 yesterday- Just wanted you all to know they are the EXACT same radios as
 before the big price drop- Same high quality metal radio and still
 INCLUDES the mounting hardware AND the pre-made cat5 outdoor cable (60ft
 long)- the cable is worth more then you can imagine- the RJ45 plug is
 already factory terminated and properly shielded so your installers
 don't have to do that up on the roof and you don't have to worry about a
 bad connector later.

 We have deployed a LOT of these radios already and I can tell you this
 is a great price. I'm looking forward to Alvarion extending this program
 to other products. (Patrick...)

 Marty

 ___
 Marty Dougherty
 CEO
 Roadstar Internet Inc.
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]





 -- 
 WISPA 

Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

2006-12-22 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
Patrick... I find the 48V power thing a HUGE problem.

almost every site I have now is 12V powered...




+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 3:09 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived


 Marlon,

 You say most of my towers have fewer than 25 users on them...  In
 response to that reality we created a version of the VL AU for rural
 markets. We came to realize that the cost of a regular of VL AU where
 likely user counts are low simply was not economical. So we came up with
 the AUS. Three VL sectors using the AUS will support 75 users. An AUS
 (list of $2,595) has a limit of 25 attachments, but it can be upgraded
 if the demographics will support it; it is otherwise no different from a
 regular VL AU. Three AUS sectors will cost you about $6k, so about 2.4x
 your more modest three sector arrangement. The install will be easier,
 so that will make up a little (unless you don't count your time as a
 cost). But that will also support about 100mbps net so you can figure
 the math in terms of what can be delivered to subs at your chosen
 oversubscription. And you know it will do that at range LOS since the
 CPE has an integrated 21dBi MTI.

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

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
 Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 11:55 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

 It's much closer Patrick.  That's for sure.

 Let run some numbers though.

 Tranzeo or Inscape Data ap:
 $450ish.  Will deliver an honest 3 to 4 megs to almost anyone at ranges
 up
 to 10 miles.  1 to 2 megs out to 15 miles.
 Sector antenna, $400.
 Or omni and amp, $500 to $700 depending on the quality of the amp and
 antenna.
 This'll handle roughly 75 to 100 users pretty easily.
 If we need 3 sectors we're still at $2500 or so for the whole pop,
 battery
 backup, switch, cables etc.  If we're lucky that'll even include
 backhaul.

 For CPE the cost is gonna be around:
 15dB integrated antenna version (good to 3 to 5 miles) $180ish
 18dB version (out to around 8 miles) $200ish
 $12ish for antenna brackets (I don't buy the cheap ones, only the good
 ones
 from PacWireless)
 $10 to $20 for cable ($.15 to $.25 per foot)
 Misc. nuts and bolts $20.
 We're at $225 $250 per sub plus labor.

 Connectorized version, $180ish
 24dB grid antenna, $90ish (I don't buy cheap antennas, only Andrew cast
 magnesium (same as the Alvarion ones))
 Mount, $12
 Misc. nuts and bolt, tape etc. $20
 Cable, $10 to $20.

 This one comes in closer to $350 when it's all said and done.

 Believe me, I understand about the long term maintenance costs too.  But

 I've got to compete against cable, dsl, fiber to the home or all of the
 above in ALL of my population density centers and a lot of my rural
 areas.

 Most of my towers have fewer than 25 users on them.  Many are under 10.
 Only a few are anywhere near 50 and one serves around 100.  Last year we

 installed over 80 new radios (some of them were for our use, some were
 upgrades etc.) and have, so far, around 60 new subs.  This with
 basically no
 marketing effort at all, and in the face of amazing competition.  Per
 customer there are VERY few out there that have more competitive
 services.

 Our network now spans around 6000 square miles.  It's taken over 20
 sites
 with nearly 30 ap's to do this.  Our growth potential is really good.
 But
 not in all areas, some areas there just aren't any homes, so there won't
 be
 any more customers coming.

 We are NOT running business grade services on anyone's wifi gear.  Today

 we're using Trango.  $1200ish per ap and $300ish per cpe (averaged out).

 They'll deliver 8 to 9 megs of real world throughput right out of the
 box.
 Great security and flexibility.

 Alvarion has been loyal to WISPA and Trango's still not here though.  I
 want
 to go play with the new Alvarion gear, I don't have any single area with

 enough growth to keep me in the program though.  Even with resi.
 customers
 tossed in.  If I were in Spokane, Seattle, Yakima etc. it would be a no
 brainer for me.  The interference robustness, the scalability, the
 upgradeability etc. all make this a much more cut and dried decision.
 Especially the inference issues.  I look at what we fight with out here
 with
 relatively few alien devices in the air.  How guys like Forbes keep
 their
 customers running is a mystery to me.  The manpower overhead has to be a

 killer.

 How do those numbers compare with a similar VL solution  

Re: [WISPA] FCC meeting with wisps

2006-12-21 Thread Mark Koskenmaki


- Original Message - 
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Cc: Principal WISPA Member List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC meeting with wisps



 How do we get the anti 477 crowd to fill in their spot on the map


A ratified constitutional amendment that says that congress and the FCC will
stay FOREVER out of our hair.   Since that's not going to happen...

I would suggest conveying to the FCC just how adamant that a large array of
operators are that they NOT be required to do X to be in the business of
providing internet.   477 is just the nose of one of  a herd of camels.

+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net





-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] DAY FROM HELL!!!

2006-12-17 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061217/ap_on_re_us/northwest_storm

While we experienced some very high winds, very little damage was done
locally.   Somewhat lesser windstorms are relatively common here in
northeastern Oregon, and so there's not a large mass of damage that gets
done by the big ones.



+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

- Original Message - 
From: Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 10:22 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] DAY FROM HELL!!!


 I hate y'all are having storms and even worse that it has knocked y'all
off
 line at different towers.

  It's been almost intolerable here too:


http://www.weather.com/weather/wxdetail/71269?from=yest_bottomnav_undeclared



 Mac




 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
 Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 10:19 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] DAY FROM HELL!!!

 The storm here on Thursday night tore one of my sites down.

 ONE 2 foot dish and one sector,  were not able to be supported by the
 galvanized pipe just 7 feet.   The wind bent it over at 20 degrees... and
 then the guy wire snapped in the upwind direction, causing the whole thing
 to snap off...   The guys were below the sector, which was directly below
 the dish, and it bent 2 pipe (I think it was 2, maybe 1.5).   Either
way,
 it bent over that pipe like nothing.   The site had been through many 70+
 mph storms without even being tweaked.

 For comparison purposes,  I set up a 1 pipe and jumped on the middle,
 supported at the ends and could not bend it like that...   (and I'm 275
 lbs )

 The guy wire was tension wire sold for holding up orchard trees!   The
 pulling tension capability was way beyond 1000lbs.

 The site's still down, as yesterday, the wind was still screaming along at
 40 mph, and we would not even attempt to raise the masting.   It's under
20
 feet above the barn roof, but we were afraid to get on the barn ourselves,
 much less attempt to raise 18 feet of pipe, antennas, and guy wires into
 place up on top of it.  Hopefully by Sunday, the wind has died and it has
 not snowed again :(.

 When we left at 4:30 last night, the wind was still at 30-40 mph and it
was
 well below freezing.
 brr...



 +++
 neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East
Washington
 email me at mark at neofast dot net
 541-969-8200
 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

 - Original Message - 
 From: Mark Nash - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 3:02 PM
 Subject: [WISPA] DAY FROM HELL!!!


  Wind storms came through last night.  Power out at 6 sites this morning,
  various power companies.  Started at 6 this morning...Put in 2
generators,
  purchased 8 marine batteries and patched them into my APC UPS units.  2
  sites now still running on batteries, 2 on generators.  Will be a late
 night
  I think...
 
  George, I would imagine you guys had it worse out there on the coast...
 
  Mark Nash
  Network Engineer
  UnwiredOnline.Net
  350 Holly Street
  Junction City, OR 97448
  http://www.uwol.net
  541-998-
  541-998-5599 fax
 
 
  -- 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

 -- 
 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] salary

2006-12-17 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

While I was digging around in incorporating advice books, I ran across some
commentary about this.   It seems that if you attempt to claim only income
from your stock (assuming your stock pays dividends to you ) which is taxed
less than wages or salary, the IRS will arbitrarily consider a specific
percentage of it to be salary for tax purposes to raise your tax
liability.   Now, this is focused on small corporations, not public ones,
where you as the majority stockholder, have the ability to choose how to
pay yourself.   I believe it applies to S corp and other small and
privately held corporations with working or actively engaged in the
business stockholders.

Doing so ( paying yourself only dividends) will result in things like audits
and a lot of scrutiny of your operation and personal tax issues from the
IRS, too.But since the founders of Google cannot set their own wages and
that is governed by a board of directors of a public corporation, they don't
face quite the same set of circumstances.

Frankly, as businessmen,  we should lobby for the abolition of the IRS and
income taxes.   While I doubt Uncle Sam's appetite for money will go away,
I've read that the  cost of compliance with IRS rules and regs is often
significant for businesses..., and as far as large corporations go, it's
usually MORE than the taxes they pay. That, and that the way we buy and sell
and conduct our business is influenced far too much by tax issues.
Something that gets the IRS out of our accountant's business and lets us
focus purely on business as business would be better.



+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

- Original Message - 
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] salary


 I do not think any WISPs here really know the answer to this. What is
 needed is an answer from an accountant. If anyone on here is a CPA and
 can share what the rules are I would be glad to see them. I do not
 believe that simply drawing profits from a S corp WISP as opposed to
 taking a salary is tax evasion. In a S corp you pay taxes for profits
 same as you do for payroll. Where you might have a problem is with
 unemployment insurance, social security, workmans comp, etc. Those are
 based on payroll. Profits are not in the calculation. Essentially you
 are dodging those when you do not take a salary.
 Scriv



 Charles Wu wrote:

 snip
 Zero.  When the CEO is also the primary investor, and the company is an
 S-corp or LLC, why pay payroll tax, when you can just take a repayment of
 loan?
 The salary of the CEO can be meaningless unless also disclosed wether
they
 have an equity position or not, and of what caliber.
 /snip
 
 B/c when you get audited by the IRS (which for any small business, is
just a
 matter of time), you will FINED for tax evasion...
 
 -Charles
 
 ---
 WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
 Coming to a City Near You
 http://www.winog.com
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
 Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 1:51 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] salary
 
 
 
 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
 
 
 - Original Message - 
 From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 8:55 PM
 Subject: [WISPA] salary
 
 
 
 
 Hi,
 
 Just taking a quick survey... answer if you can, but be honest... ;)
 
 What is the salary of the CEO of your ISP? Even if you can share the
 percentage of that salary compared to annual gross revenue...
 
 Travis
 Microserv
 --
 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] DAY FROM HELL!!!

2006-12-16 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
The storm here on Thursday night tore one of my sites down.

ONE 2 foot dish and one sector,  were not able to be supported by the
galvanized pipe just 7 feet.   The wind bent it over at 20 degrees... and
then the guy wire snapped in the upwind direction, causing the whole thing
to snap off...   The guys were below the sector, which was directly below
the dish, and it bent 2 pipe (I think it was 2, maybe 1.5).   Either way,
it bent over that pipe like nothing.   The site had been through many 70+
mph storms without even being tweaked.

For comparison purposes,  I set up a 1 pipe and jumped on the middle,
supported at the ends and could not bend it like that...   (and I'm 275
lbs )

The guy wire was tension wire sold for holding up orchard trees!   The
pulling tension capability was way beyond 1000lbs.

The site's still down, as yesterday, the wind was still screaming along at
40 mph, and we would not even attempt to raise the masting.   It's under 20
feet above the barn roof, but we were afraid to get on the barn ourselves,
much less attempt to raise 18 feet of pipe, antennas, and guy wires into
place up on top of it.  Hopefully by Sunday, the wind has died and it has
not snowed again :(.

When we left at 4:30 last night, the wind was still at 30-40 mph and it was
well below freezing.
brr...



+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

- Original Message - 
From: Mark Nash - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 3:02 PM
Subject: [WISPA] DAY FROM HELL!!!


 Wind storms came through last night.  Power out at 6 sites this morning,
 various power companies.  Started at 6 this morning...Put in 2 generators,
 purchased 8 marine batteries and patched them into my APC UPS units.  2
 sites now still running on batteries, 2 on generators.  Will be a late
night
 I think...

 George, I would imagine you guys had it worse out there on the coast...

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


 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] anyone competing with ClearWire in their market?

2006-12-15 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

I heard from a customer that they have issues with distance.

One of his neighbors was attempting to use their service, but it wasn't
working correctly, even though it was fully LOS.

As best I can tell, they're more money around here, less bandwidth, and have
trouble beyond 12 miles???

Then again, that's rumor, of course.


+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

- Original Message - 
From: rabbtux rabbtux [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 7:15 AM
Subject: [WISPA] anyone competing with ClearWire in their market?


 I was visiting Seattle, and spoke with one of their reps.  Sounds like
 they bought up a bunch of university 2.5  2.6 G licenses
 inexpensively.  Anyone have feedback on how well their wimax works in
 NLOS environments?

 Thanks - Marshall
 -- 
 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] Grrrr... pigtails

2006-12-15 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
Basically,  we can't get them to stay on the SR9, in a WAR board, because
there's only 2 positions a pigtail will fit, and both are stressed due to
the pigtail's attempting to revert to the pre-installed shape (curled up in
a bag...).




+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

- Original Message - 
From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 11:43 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] G... pigtails


 T urns out our low loss u.fl to n-female pigtails with the thicker coax
in
 the cold will revert shape and pull themselves off the cramped SR9 / WAR
 board combination.

 Excellent detail to bring up. Sounds like a fastener/tiedown problem to
me.


 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message - 
 From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 11:55 AM
 Subject: [WISPA] G... pigtails


  Thanksgiving day, my son and I put up a future customer's CPE up in the
  woods.  I mean, up in the mountains, log cabin, beyond phone and power.
  They have a generator, batteries, solar panels, etc. We did it because
  snow
  was predicted and already a little bit had fallen.   We got it there,
link
  established and was working on aiming the antenna when the laptop ran
out
  of
  power.   The power plug on the laptop PSU had broken and, well... we
were
  dead.
 
  The people got back a few days later, and by then, yes, quite a bit of
  snow
  had fallen.   When we had the chance to go back and finish ( plug the
  power
  in inside, hook up thier equipment) we had no signal.
 
  We tried everything we  could think of, short of changing parts, because
  we
  didn't take any (wasn't our install rig, just a 4x4 so we could get
  through
  the deep snow), no signal.
 
  Yesterday, after a few days of warm, we drove in ( this time, install
rig,
  my '89 Caravan ) digging through some deep snow going in the canyon
  between
  them and the main road.
 
  Eventually, we changed every part, including the WAR board and SR9, no
  signal.   Then, I assembled the WAR we took out and all the parts
changed
  out, and standing there, on the ground...  I had a solid link.
 
  Finally, in pitch black dark, I climbed the ladder, had someone provide
  some
  light, and hooked up the SR9 through another pigtail to the anntenna...
  POOF, signal.
 
  Put the original back on...  Poof, signal.  then, none.   Work  the
  pigtail
  around so it's not tensioned and in line and put it back on... Poof,
  signal.
 
  I go inside, log in...and in a minute or so, watch the signal fade to
  nothing.
 
  T urns out our low loss u.fl to n-female pigtails with the thicker coax
in
  the cold will revert shape and pull themselves off the cramped SR9 / WAR
  board combination.
 
  I found one of the crapola thing things I had rejected for 5 ghz use and
  put
  it in place...  Yeah, 1 or 2 db loss in the piggy, but it stayed on...
 
  Anyone make a low loss pigtail that's flexible even in the cold?   I
tried
  two different ones, one pacwireless, one is Roger's, I think.  Neither
  could
  be convinced to retain a new shape in the cold...
 
 
 
  +++
  neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East
  Washington
  email me at mark at neofast dot net
  541-969-8200
  Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net
 
  -- 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] Grrrr... pigtails

2006-12-14 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
Thanksgiving day, my son and I put up a future customer's CPE up in the
woods.  I mean, up in the mountains, log cabin, beyond phone and power.
They have a generator, batteries, solar panels, etc. We did it because snow
was predicted and already a little bit had fallen.   We got it there, link
established and was working on aiming the antenna when the laptop ran out of
power.   The power plug on the laptop PSU had broken and, well... we were
dead.

The people got back a few days later, and by then, yes, quite a bit of snow
had fallen.   When we had the chance to go back and finish ( plug the power
in inside, hook up thier equipment) we had no signal.

We tried everything we  could think of, short of changing parts, because we
didn't take any (wasn't our install rig, just a 4x4 so we could get through
the deep snow), no signal.

Yesterday, after a few days of warm, we drove in ( this time, install rig,
my '89 Caravan ) digging through some deep snow going in the canyon between
them and the main road.

Eventually, we changed every part, including the WAR board and SR9, no
signal.   Then, I assembled the WAR we took out and all the parts changed
out, and standing there, on the ground...  I had a solid link.

Finally, in pitch black dark, I climbed the ladder, had someone provide some
light, and hooked up the SR9 through another pigtail to the anntenna...
POOF, signal.

Put the original back on...  Poof, signal.  then, none.   Work  the pigtail
around so it's not tensioned and in line and put it back on... Poof, signal.

I go inside, log in...and in a minute or so, watch the signal fade to
nothing.

T urns out our low loss u.fl to n-female pigtails with the thicker coax in
the cold will revert shape and pull themselves off the cramped SR9 / WAR
board combination.

I found one of the crapola thing things I had rejected for 5 ghz use and put
it in place...  Yeah, 1 or 2 db loss in the piggy, but it stayed on...

Anyone make a low loss pigtail that's flexible even in the cold?   I tried
two different ones, one pacwireless, one is Roger's, I think.  Neither could
be convinced to retain a new shape in the cold...



+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] I missed billing a customer for 15 months !

2006-12-10 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
Call the guy, explain that his billing slipped through the cracks, and that
he presently owes you for 15 months.   Explain that you're going to charge
the current charges to his credit card (no quibble on that) and then ask how
he'd like to pay the rest of what's owing.

I have some customer's who'd cut me a check.   I have some who'd tell me
it's my fault and no way were they paying without an argument.

I had someone call me the other day, because  they were to renew an annual
subscription in December and hadn't gotten a bill.

I dunno how or why they weren't billed, but they were in the system and
flagged to be billed in December, but for some reason, no bill was printed
or mailed.   I like customers like that.   Then there's the other guy who
was 4 months behind, but didn't pay until I visited him twice.

Still, your goal is to retain customers, not get rid of them.

Whatcha gonna do?   I'd try my best to collect, but I don't threaten anyone.
I ask if they can't pay, to call me, and I'll put them on dialup speed until
such time they can, and I'll even forgive past due, if need be.  It costs...
but it pays...  My competition is real nasty with contracts and payments...
This is one way I can nicely kick them in the teeth :)



+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

- Original Message - 
From: Jenco Wireless [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 3:01 PM
Subject: [WISPA] I missed billing a customer for 15 months !


 Hi.  About 15 months ago I had my main tower get hit by lightning
 (catastrophic hit).  It took me a little while to get all of the bugs
worked
 out with the repairs.  During this time I had a customer's credit card get
 declined.  I deactivated his card, then forgot to move him to our
invoicing
 system.  He never called to say hey - I'm not getting billed (imagine
 that), and I just now did a credit card check to find this problem.  What
 would you do?

 a) My mistake - let it go.  Bill him from the current month.

 b) Try to bill his CC for the full amount (ouch!!)  (Our customers sign an
 agreement that we will automatically bill their CC monthly).

 c) Send him a bill for the full amount.

 d) Disconnect his service and let the past un-charges slide, then charge
 him $200 to reconnect his service.

 e) Any other ideas?

 I am opting for a above because it was my mistake.


 Thanks,

 Brad H
 -- 
 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] using diversity outdoors

2006-12-08 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
What would be the advantage (if any) to using two antennas on the client in,
connected to a CM9 and running in 'diversity' mode, where both antennas
point to the same AP?

I have had one client that seems to have some ugly multipath issues, and
rather unstable signal levels  and poor stability concerning pings.

Is there any rules to follow, if I try two antennas?

Thanks



+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] using diversity outdoors

2006-12-08 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] using diversity outdoors


 First, if you think it's multipath try moving the antenna.  I've had some
as
 low as 2' above the ground to get the best signal and speeds possible.
I've
 had a couple, maybe even a few, where moving 2 to 3 feet up or down (often
 down) seems to do the trick.

We tried moving the antenna.   It didn't have much effect.   We tried up and
down and even a little side to side...  didn't mean much.

I HAVE had moving the antenna just a foot upwards change an unworkable link
to a rock solid stable one.   Seemed it was a roof reflection, with the
antenna at the peak of the roof.


 As for running diversity, it'll be a trial and error thing.  Two things
seem
 to happen with multipath.  You could be getting a signal out of phase or
 polarity shifted.  Or both.

Well, that much I assumed.


 If you try it you'll want the antennas 3 to 10 feet vertically separated.
 You'll have to try and see if the same or cross polarity is the key for
your
 customer.

What about horizontally?   All our sites are hpol.


 I've found that multipath seems to be really really rare in the wild.
 Usually it's something else.

Well, viewed from the customer end, we're going over one house, between two,
and just over a well-travelled road.

While most customers are generally rock-steady with signal moving perhaps a
db or two now and then, this one's about 10 db weaker than it should be and
fluctuates constantly 2-4 db.

It was improved by moving the antenna upwards 18 inches, but it's still not
stable, and more vertical height is probably not in the cards.



 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: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 9:00 PM
 Subject: [WISPA] using diversity outdoors


  What would be the advantage (if any) to using two antennas on the client
  in,
  connected to a CM9 and running in 'diversity' mode, where both antennas
  point to the same AP?
 
  I have had one client that seems to have some ugly multipath issues, and
  rather unstable signal levels  and poor stability concerning pings.
 
  Is there any rules to follow, if I try two antennas?
 
  Thanks
 
 
 
  +++
  neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East
  Washington
  email me at mark at neofast dot net
  541-969-8200
  Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net
 
  -- 
  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] Industry failings

2006-12-06 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
Whatever happened to finding the needs of customers and fulfilling them on a
sustainable and sensible basis?



+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 6:59 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Industry failings




  Who says they are executing? Good installs, good equipment, lots of
  sites built, and happy customers are all important things, but none of
  them mean they are executing well. They actually need to execute
  against their business plan, which includes things like cash flow and
  profitability. Both currently stink.
 
  -Matt
 
 Maybe they have a typical biz plan:  Build and tweak; then admire the
 potential; and hope someone will buy all that network- all the
 potential, all the lit real estate, all the roof rights.


 - Peter

 -- 
 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] 30 miles on a VAGI???

2006-12-06 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

We did an install today...  Started it yesterday, but had no signal, where
we could see location for our AP at 11 miles.   Turned out to be a bad
dipole in the grid, but today, we went back, and of course, with a bad
dipole we had to switch antennas...

The only other antenna that was in the van was a VAGI (and it's at least a
half hour's drive one way back to  get another antenna), so we put it up.
I wasn't on the roof, so I didn't see the actual path, but from appearances,
the chimney was sorta sideswiped and I think created some multipath,
becuase our signal level at the AP was bouncing wildly from 9 to 13, which
is real low, and no amount of aiming could improve it.

So, we swung the VAGI 90 degrees, pointed at another access point that's
29.7 (or something like that, using Google Earth's measuring)  miles away...

I've got 18 db margin at the AP, and 14 db at the client end (-81
client, -77 AP ).

The AP is one our bird frying sectors, WRAP board running Star-OS and CM9.

The client is a Compex WP54 board, running Ikarus and a CM9.

Ikarus limit for ack timing is 50KM, and our measurement says we're at 48
KM.   But, it works fine, and repeated tests show the throughput well
exceeds the customer's sold 2M connectivity, with 20ms ping times while
transferring 2.3mbit steady state.

Now who was it said you gotta have amps to go the distance?



+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] Effect of Snow on 900

2006-12-04 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
I put in a customer's CPE just as the snow season started at my customer's
house in the mountains.   They had around 2 inches of snow on the ground,
and of course, some clung to the trees.

They were gone for Thanksgiving weekend, and when they got back, it was a
few days before I could get back to finish up inside.

When I left, we had a nice solid link, though it went through quite a few
trees right by the client end, at a total distance of about three miles, but
the sky visible through the trees we had to run through.

When I got back yesterday, we can't even see the AP on a site survey.

The only difference is that now there's maybe a food of snow and of  course,
somewhat more stuck to the trees.

Client and AP are both WAR boards with SR9's and 9 db yagi's.

Does snow block 900 that effectively?   Our testing showed earlier that in
town, you can get a weak signal with a site survey even standing on the
ground, through a mile or more of houses, trees, etc.We tried re-aiming,
but nothing.

Did I have something else go wrong, or does snow clinging to a few branches
totally wipe out an additional 15 or more db of RSSI?




+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


  1   2   3   >