Re: [WISPA] FBI Seeks To Pay Telecoms For Data

[Michael Erskine]

Now, there is a well reasoned argument if I have ever heard one.

Make the ISP pay for it and thereby ensure that the ISP protects the 
privacy of his

customers.

Good argument Jeromie, very good argument.

I yield to a more reasoned argument and I agree with you.

-m-



Jeromie Reeves wrote:

The problem (as I see it) is that it will start with just the AAA, and
then it will be all emails, then all IM, then all voip. Where will it
end? That is why I think the cost of it should be on the ISP and
should be very clearly explained in the TOS/AUP. Government funding
for it will lead to Government control. This is one place it just
plain is not needed.

On 7/29/07, Michael Erskine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  

The FBI wants to pay the major telecommunications companies to retain
their
customers' Internet and phone call information for at least two years
for
the agency's use in counterterrorism investigations and is asking
Congress
for $5 million a year to defray the cost, according to FBI officials and
budget documents.


However, if we are forced to retain records, I do believe I would like to be
paid to do that.

If congress requires us to retain these records, it may be helpful if
they also
fund the effort?

Currently I keep three years of AAA records.  If you logged on our system
in the past three years, I know when, where and how.

I have used that information to satisfy two subpoena's in as many months.

So ... let them pay us.  It is better than having to do it for nothing
but it is not
better than not having to do it at all.

-m-
P.S.  I said it because it makes me "feel better about myself".

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

  



Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] FBI Seeks To Pay Telecoms For Data

[Michael Erskine]

The FBI wants to pay the major telecommunications companies to retain 
their
customers' Internet and phone call information for at least two years 
for
the agency's use in counterterrorism investigations and is asking 
Congress

for $5 million a year to defray the cost, according to FBI officials and
budget documents.

However, if we are forced to retain records, I do believe I would like to be
paid to do that.

If congress requires us to retain these records, it may be helpful if 
they also

fund the effort?

Currently I keep three years of AAA records.  If you logged on our system
in the past three years, I know when, where and how.

I have used that information to satisfy two subpoena's in as many months.

So ... let them pay us.  It is better than having to do it for nothing 
but it is not

better than not having to do it at all.

-m-
P.S.  I said it because it makes me "feel better about myself".

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] FBI Seeks To Pay Telecoms For Data

[Michael Erskine]

No, Peter.  This was not off topic.

I just deleted the rest of my response.  I figure that I don't really have
to explain my opinion to you.

-m-



Peter R. wrote:
Well, this was totally off topic. Nothing better to improve 
relationships than anti-gov't chatter on an open, archived list.


Thanks, M.  (I think isp-chat is for this).

- Peter

Michael Erskine wrote:

Jeromie;


I am writing this before reading the rest of the thread.

Please be patient with me.



UHG!!! What a waste of resources. Can anyone point to even ONE
terrorist that has even been "sniffed out" due to data from an ISP? I
did a few quick Google searches and no case has popped up.



I detest the FBI.  We have a "special" relationship.  We try to keep it
"professional".

That said, can you imagine any situation in which the 
counter-intelligence

responsible agency in the US government would ever find it desirable
to actually document in public how they got the intelligence that 
lead to

someone being "sniffed out"?

Honestly, they are not likely to tell you how the got what they got 
until

the court case is finished, are they?  Even then there are mechanisms
where information is not allowed to enter the official court record.



IMO
terrorist groups have show that they know how to operate and not leave
a trail that leads anyplace important till after the fact.



Is that your "Intelligence Professional" opinion?  ;)



Anyone
remember when it was requested that encryptions have a back door? I
think this is partly fall out from then. How many ISPs have people who
use PGP? As a computer shop I can think of at least a few people who
are using PGP/OpenPGP and one who uses a 2048bit cypher. What is
WISPA`s official stance on this subject?





Anyone remember when the Wall Street Journal reported that NSA could
crack PGP?  I do.


All that said, do I think that this is a good idea?  Hell no!  I 
think that the

FBI is like any other gubmit agency.  Eighty percent of their employees
go to work every day at 9 AM and get off at 3 PM.  The rest of them
carry the load.  It is the 80% moron population that proposed this brain
dead idea...

Someone send them a note 'cause they impress me as much today as
they ever have...

One last thing worth remembering about the FBI.  800 background
files buy a LOT of VOTES, especially when about 400 of them are
Congress critters.

That ain't politics.  That is history.

-m-

 

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board 
know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA 
lists.  The current Board is taking this under consideration at this 
time.  We want to know your thoughts.
 







Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] FBI Seeks To Pay Telecoms For Data

[Michael Erskine]

Jeromie;


I am writing this before reading the rest of the thread.

Please be patient with me.



UHG!!! What a waste of resources. Can anyone point to even ONE
terrorist that has even been "sniffed out" due to data from an ISP? I
did a few quick Google searches and no case has popped up.



I detest the FBI.  We have a "special" relationship.  We try to keep it
"professional".

That said, can you imagine any situation in which the counter-intelligence
responsible agency in the US government would ever find it desirable
to actually document in public how they got the intelligence that lead to
someone being "sniffed out"?

Honestly, they are not likely to tell you how the got what they got until
the court case is finished, are they?  Even then there are mechanisms
where information is not allowed to enter the official court record.



IMO
terrorist groups have show that they know how to operate and not leave
a trail that leads anyplace important till after the fact.



Is that your "Intelligence Professional" opinion?  ;)



Anyone
remember when it was requested that encryptions have a back door? I
think this is partly fall out from then. How many ISPs have people who
use PGP? As a computer shop I can think of at least a few people who
are using PGP/OpenPGP and one who uses a 2048bit cypher. What is
WISPA`s official stance on this subject?





Anyone remember when the Wall Street Journal reported that NSA could
crack PGP?  I do.


All that said, do I think that this is a good idea?  Hell no!  I think 
that the

FBI is like any other gubmit agency.  Eighty percent of their employees
go to work every day at 9 AM and get off at 3 PM.  The rest of them
carry the load.  It is the 80% moron population that proposed this brain
dead idea...

Someone send them a note 'cause they impress me as much today as
they ever have...

One last thing worth remembering about the FBI.  800 background
files buy a LOT of VOTES, especially when about 400 of them are
Congress critters.

That ain't politics.  That is history.

-m-


Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

[Michael Erskine]

Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,

Maybe you need to read my posts a little better... I think I have said 
it twice already, but I will say it again:


I am not after Google, nor am I saying they are "evil". What I am 
saying is there is a grand plan already in place with this 700mhz 
auction they are considering. They have the money and the means to do 
just about anything they want with it. We just need to keep our eyes 
open. The telco's already own a great deal of spectrum, so another 
20mhz really isn't going to matter much. They don't know what they are 
doing, why would it change now?


The ILECs have been building the POTS network since 1900.  They are not 
incompetent and they understand how to buy power.






And, I'll say it again... The telco's don't scare me. Qwest offers 
$19.95 DSL packages right now... our cheapest wireless plan is $39.95, 
yet we continue to take people away from Qwest. Will I ever be as big 
as they are? No. But I will continue to pick up the people that HATE 
the telco and cableco, and that business alone will keep me in 
business for a long, long time. ;)


That is exactly what we do here...  We are a Canopy house and we 
routinely take customers from both cable and our ILEC.  You are right 
about being in business for a long time.  We are thinking in terms of 
our grand children.  I do understand your point.  Ten, even twenty years 
is going to work in rural situations.





We understand the phone company sold you DSL for twice what it sold to 
the customer... but again, why does that matter here? The day they 
started doing that was the same day you should have been installing 
wireless to all of your existing customers.


You think like we did.


We have had Qwest literally take a customer away from us while all 
three of us were conferenced on a call for support. That is against 
their company policy, especially when we called their "safe line" for 
ISP's. But there isn't a damn thing you can do about it, so you just 
move on. :)
Well, enough.  Move along from Google.  You have larger issues to 
concern yourself with.


-m-

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

[Michael Erskine]

Ten years is a good run, Travis.

I wish you would listen to what I post rather than figure out some 
"smart" response.

You have whined and whined about Google, yet you feel that the ILECs are not
a threat. 

Besides the fact that you won a legal battle or two, you have no reason 
not to

appropriate the *facts*.  Yet you choose not to do that.

Ok, help yourself.  Go tilt at the Google windmill but while you do 
that, maybe

you will check six once in a while?  Because "6" is FTTH and 700 MHz in the
hands of the ILECs.  You may not believe that, and I personally could 
give a

RATZ hinderst parts one way or the other, but put it in your note book and
come back to me in two years...  There are a lot of folks here who will 
tell you

that I am not often wrong ... even though they don't like me worth a damn.

Choose your enemies however you want.  Me, I think I will choose mine
with a dash of common sense.

-m-





Travis Johnson wrote:
I figured it out a long time ago wireless internet go around 
the big bad phone company... since 1997. :)


Travis
Microserv

Michael Erskine wrote:

Try filing a suit for taking your customers...   :-\

You won't win that one.  They have the same sort of pockets you fear 
in Google, except that they have already proven they will sell you 
DSL at twice the price they will offer retail...


When we started reselling Verizon DSL we paid them "whole sale" 
because the FCC said that they had to let us buy at whole sale.  
Wholesale to us was $23.95.  Retail to their
customers was $14.95 with a one year commitment.  Then the FCC 
decided that they did not have to let us buy at wholesale...


You frigure it out.  ;)

-m-

Travis Johnson wrote:
I don't fear the ILEC's... they are regulated and can be easily 
sued. We have sued Qwest twice and won both times... once for slow 
delivery of new lines and another time for billing errors.


Travis
Microserv

Michael J. Erskine wrote:

Travis Johnson wrote:
Yes, I remember the dark fiber... and so, the question remains, 
how much fiber did they buy? They are now bidding on 700mhz 
spectrum, and could connect everything back to their main 
datacenters with all the dark fiber they purchased previously. ;)


And I never said they were "Evil" (which is funny that everyone is 
using that term when it is Google's company moto to "Do no 
Evil")... all I am saying is we need to keep our eyes open and 
watch what is going on... if the telco's buy the 700mhz, nobody 
really cares... they will use it for cell phone or higher speed 
mobile services...



No, They will use it to deliver broadband in direct competition to 
you.  The telco's have figured out that their future rests in 
broadband and not POTS.




but if Google buys it, they will offer internet service really, 
really cheap or for free. They are making BILLIONS of dollars 
profit every year without doing anything...



They are organizing data.  They are selling advertizing space.  CBS 
does that.  NBC does that.  CNN does that.  It is not nothing.



so they really have a lot of money they can throw at whatever they 
want.


Good.  I am all for competitors to the ILECs and I sincerely hope 
that Google gets some of that spectrum and offers the public a 
third option...





Let's run some quick numbers... just for the fun of it...

700mhz Access Point at roughly $2,000 each
700mhz CPE at roughly $200 each

Let's use a 50:1 ratio of CPE to AP, so it would be $12,000 for 
each AP/CPE combo. They would be able to charge something for the 
CPE, so that money can be used for other tower expenses (UPS, 
switches, etc.). Using only their profit for a single MONTH, they 
could put up 83,000 access points and deliver 4.1 million CPE. 
They could, almost instantly, become the single largest ISP in the 
world.




Hey, and that would really level the playing field with the big 
boys, wouldn't it?



It just gets scary when you actually realize that a BILLION is one 
thousand MILLION dollars.


Yes but investors are investors, aren't they?  Investors are often 
hesitant to let a company explore new territory.  They would not be 
allowed to drop all their eggs in that one basket and they could 
not put the infrastructure in place that fast either.


If you are looking for something to fear, fear the ILECs.

 

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board 
know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA 
lists.  The current Board is taking this under consideration at 
this time.  We want to know your thoughts.
 

 

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board 
know your feelings about a

Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

[Michael Erskine]

Try filing a suit for taking your customers...   :-\

You won't win that one.  They have the same sort of pockets you fear in 
Google, except that they have already proven they will sell you DSL at 
twice the price they will offer retail...


When we started reselling Verizon DSL we paid them "whole sale" because 
the FCC said that they had to let us buy at whole sale.  Wholesale to us 
was $23.95.  Retail to their
customers was $14.95 with a one year commitment.  Then the FCC decided 
that they did not have to let us buy at wholesale...


You frigure it out.  ;)

-m-

Travis Johnson wrote:
I don't fear the ILEC's... they are regulated and can be easily sued. 
We have sued Qwest twice and won both times... once for slow delivery 
of new lines and another time for billing errors.


Travis
Microserv

Michael J. Erskine wrote:

Travis Johnson wrote:
Yes, I remember the dark fiber... and so, the question remains, how 
much fiber did they buy? They are now bidding on 700mhz spectrum, 
and could connect everything back to their main datacenters with all 
the dark fiber they purchased previously. ;)


And I never said they were "Evil" (which is funny that everyone is 
using that term when it is Google's company moto to "Do no Evil")... 
all I am saying is we need to keep our eyes open and watch what is 
going on... if the telco's buy the 700mhz, nobody really cares... 
they will use it for cell phone or higher speed mobile services...



No, They will use it to deliver broadband in direct competition to 
you.  The telco's have figured out that their future rests in 
broadband and not POTS.




but if Google buys it, they will offer internet service really, 
really cheap or for free. They are making BILLIONS of dollars profit 
every year without doing anything...



They are organizing data.  They are selling advertizing space.  CBS 
does that.  NBC does that.  CNN does that.  It is not nothing.



so they really have a lot of money they can throw at whatever they 
want.


Good.  I am all for competitors to the ILECs and I sincerely hope 
that Google gets some of that spectrum and offers the public a third 
option...





Let's run some quick numbers... just for the fun of it...

700mhz Access Point at roughly $2,000 each
700mhz CPE at roughly $200 each

Let's use a 50:1 ratio of CPE to AP, so it would be $12,000 for each 
AP/CPE combo. They would be able to charge something for the CPE, so 
that money can be used for other tower expenses (UPS, switches, 
etc.). Using only their profit for a single MONTH, they could put up 
83,000 access points and deliver 4.1 million CPE. They could, almost 
instantly, become the single largest ISP in the world.




Hey, and that would really level the playing field with the big boys, 
wouldn't it?



It just gets scary when you actually realize that a BILLION is one 
thousand MILLION dollars.


Yes but investors are investors, aren't they?  Investors are often 
hesitant to let a company explore new territory.  They would not be 
allowed to drop all their eggs in that one basket and they could not 
put the infrastructure in place that fast either.


If you are looking for something to fear, fear the ILECs.

 

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board 
know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA 
lists.  The current Board is taking this under consideration at this 
time.  We want to know your thoughts.
 

 

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board 
know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA 
lists.  The current Board is taking this under consideration at this 
time.  We want to know your thoughts.
 




Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

[Michael Erskine]

Travis Johnson wrote:
Ok... let's take a look at it for a second... Time Magazine article 
from 2006 documents how a senior writer for CNET wanted to see how 
much they could learn about the CEO of Google using just Google to 
search. Well, they found all kinds of info (address, home phone, 
salary and other incomes, etc. etc.). The founders of Google were 
outraged and were going to "ban" CNET because of it. They later 
reconsidered, but let's think about this for a second:


They could have actually _removed_ CNET from all their search 
databases and effectively made CNET non-existant on a Google search 
(for 600 million people). This could have all been done because 
someone made them mad.



But they did not do it...  Power that is not exercised is counted as 
honorable.  It is dignity, not shame.  They did not do what they could 
have done.  Why is that a problem for you>





Is there anything we can do? Not really. Am I changing my business 
direction or plan because of it? No. But it continues to amaze me that 
people in "high places" watch these things happen and don't even 
question it until it's too late. Google is buying up little companies 
all the time... they literally have more money than they can spend 
right now... that puts them in a very scary position for all of us.


Travis
Microserv



Have you checked he net worth of Bill Gates lately?

Mind you I am a Linux guy and I detest Microsoft... But Bill Gates has 
decided that he is not going to give his kids his fortune.  Yeah, he is 
going to set them up for life, but he is going to give the majority of 
his fortune to those who have not had such opportunity.


How can I hate Bill if he is going to be such a decent man?

I can't.

Now, why should I hate Google just because they have the opportunity to 
abuse things.  After all, they have the power and they do not exercise it.


That is better than any government I have ever paid attention to in the 
past.


Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

[Michael Erskine]

Travis Johnson wrote:
And thus you just hit the nail on the head... and it brings us back 
full circle to the original subject of this thread...


Google is going to bid on 700mhz spectrum... billions of dollars... 
then, once they own it, they are going to start some type of wireless 
internet service using that spectrum... and then, they WILL be 
competing directly with all the ISP's. And, they will probably give 
the service away FREE, just like they do now with their WiFi service. 
Can you compete with FREE service, using 700mhz NLOS technology 
(meaning self-install, take the modem with you to work type service)?


I think they probably will sell the service.  Their argument is that it 
should be an OPEN service, meaning that anyone's devices have to work 
with it.  Kind of like, modems back in the day.  Any modem could connect 
to a Cisco RAS server and anyone could own a RAS server if he had a 
line.  Google seems to be saying that the rules for the spectrum should 
allow anyone to build a device which will work on the spectrum *AND* 
anyone who licenses the spectrum will have to honor such a device.


Those rules are a heck of a lot more fair than the rules currently being 
discussed.





So, now who's your friend? They have a huge recurring income from the 
search engine, so they don't have to make a dime on other services... 
gmail, Google Earth, etc. are all examples. They will just add 700mhz 
wireless to the list of "free" things they provide.


Travis, Google is not the Evil Empire...  Why do you think they are?  
They have a recurring income from the world's best search engine.  Why 
is that a problem?  Google Earth is a problem, why?  Check out Microsoft 
selling you www.terraserver.com.  Yep, they are reselling you the data 
that your tax dollars bought in the first place... That is why I use 
www.terraserver-usa.com, the site they are required by law to support.  
Slower, but it works.


I don't know why you are afraid of Google.  I don't think they are 
coming to a town near you.  Maybe they will come to your town to *buy 
you out*, but they probably won't come to your town to crush your 
business... Verizon will.


Michael:  "Hello, yes, the lady at Verizon told me that there was 
nothing you could do about the problems we are having with their DSL 
service, the one we are reselling, yes."


Lady at FCC: "Well, sadly she is correct.  Unless the quality of service 
is the problem, we can not help you."


I don't know Travis, but it looks to me like you have a great life.  Why 
worry yourself over Google's market share?


-m-


Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

[Michael Erskine]

Good lord, when did this wave of paranoia begin?  I missed it.

Should I be terrified that Google is going to "own" the Internet as I 
know it?  What shall I do?
What shall I do?  You mean that Google is going to come to my town and 
try to triple the local
loop charges on my fractional DS-3 simply because I want my carrier to 
double the bandwidth...


... same fiber, different signaling rate, triple the local loop ...  
Only Verizon can pull of something

like that and get away with it.

But back to the topic.

What *exactly* do I have to fear from Google?  These vague suggestions 
that they are going to
control the internet are obviously paranoia unless you can document 
something dark and sinister

about Google...

So, rather than make all these irrational claims, why not just 
*document* how google is the evil

empire and they are taking over the internet...

The very idea that they do 44% of the searches on the Internet and so 
they are in control is
ludacris on it's face.  Anyone can use any search engine they want to 
use.  Therefore Google does

not control sqaut, except what people let them control.

... and that Jonathan, and Travis, is simple business ...

There is no evil empire behind the curtain. Honest.
Take the blue pill, Neo...

-m-


Jonathan Schmidt wrote:

Travis, your figures are right on and we've been there since the start, too,
in fact were #19 in Sprint's first customers for dedicated Internet
connection before that.

Something curious is happening and it deserves close scrutiny... starting
before NOW!

We're (paper-presenting) members of MAAWG and CEAS ...organizations you all
should watch...and start that now, too.

. . . j o n a t h a n

Jonathan Schmidt
Perftech, Inc.




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 11:07 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

I'm not sure what the hell your problem is, but you really need to get a 
grip. I started in the internet space in 1994... back before Google or 
even Altavista... back when there were no real search engines to speak 
of... and now today, Google's search is used by 44% of ALL internet 
searches... so, whether you believe it or not, they CAN control what 
searches are displayed for 44% of the internet that's only about 600 
million people.


Postini does SPAM blocking and filtering for a very large percentage of 
the internet today... we have been using them for almost 4 years. Large 
corporations (Apple, Sun, and others) also use them. So, once again, 
with Google buying Postini, they can control a _very_ large percentage 
of what emails get thru and don't get thru.


Sounds like you are prepared to have Google control the internet for you 
rather than some ILEC that can really never have control... but some of 
us are not. Some of us helped get the internet where it is today because 
it was open and not controlled. You really need to open your eyes and 
take a look around... Google is becoming the Microsoft of internet space.


Travis
Microserv

Michael Erskine wrote:
  

Travis Johnson wrote:

Google is quietly and methodically taking control of the internet. 
They already control what results we see on a search... 
  
No they don't...  Once upon a time there was CERN's search engine and 
then there was Altavista, and then there was
Yahoo, and then there was MSN, and Google.  So you see, Google does 
not control what results we see on a search,

if we but realize that there are other search engines.  Mr. Jeeve's?



and with the purchase of Postini, they will be able to control what 
emails we actually receive. And now they are bidding on wireless 
spectrum.
  
OMG.  They are going to control what E-Mail's we receive?  Will that 
help with the spam problem?  LoL dude.
Nobody can control what E-Mail's you receive but your mail host and 
sadly it can only do so much.




They are just slowly taking over little pieces of the net... bit by 
bit... :(
  
Yeah, bad! evil! Google!  Fighting for net neutrality against all 
those nicey nice ILECs who have nothing but our

own best interests at heart.  :)







 
  
Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board 
know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA 
lists.  The current Board is taking this under consideration at this 
time.  We want to know your thoughts.





 
  



Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know
your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The
current Board is t

Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

[Michael Erskine]

Travis Johnson wrote:
I'm not sure what the hell your problem is, but you really need to get 
a grip. I started in the internet space in 1994... back before Google 
or even Altavista... back when there were no real search engines to 
speak of... and now today, Google's search is used by 44% of ALL 
internet searches... so, whether you believe it or not, they CAN 
control what searches are displayed for 44% of the internet that's 
only about 600 million people.



1)  I took you to be a young man from the start.  I wrote machine 
language on a Commodore 64 in 1983 while I was studying Computer Science 
but I sat down to my first main frame keyboard in 1972.

2) 44% is not a majority, last time I looked.
3) They are not the evil empire, honest... :P  They are just another 
company making a living.




Postini does SPAM blocking and filtering for a very large percentage 
of the internet today... we have been using them for almost 4 years. 
Large corporations (Apple, Sun, and others) also use them. So, once 
again, with Google buying Postini, they can control a _very_ large 
percentage of what emails get thru and don't get thru.



Well you see, I've never felt the need to have someone else manage my 
mail servers...  That means that I can't relate to your problem.  Mind 
you I don't believe your problem is anything but paranoia, but I could 
be wrong.  Google could be the evil empire and they might want to 
prevent me from getting my E-Mail...  Maybe ...  NAWH!  Prolly not!  :)






Sounds like you are prepared to have Google control the internet for 
you rather than some ILEC that can really never have control... but 
some of us are not. Some of us helped get the internet where it is 
today because it was open and not controlled. You really need to open 
your eyes and take a look around... Google is becoming the Microsoft 
of internet space.



Gee, Google never did lobby the FCC to get permission to "wholesale" DSL 
to us for $24.95 per month, while they "retailed" the same lines to our 
customers at "$15.95" per month.  Verizon did. 
Friend, you need to figure out who your allies are and who wants to 
crush you...  Google has no interest in crushing Travis Johnson...  The 
ILEC's do have an interest in crushing your business because you and 
they are in the same business space now.



Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Google makes it official -- putting up $4.6 billion

[Michael Erskine]

Travis Johnson wrote:
Google is quietly and methodically taking control of the internet. 
They already control what results we see on a search... 


No they don't...  Once upon a time there was CERN's search engine and 
then there was Altavista, and then there was
Yahoo, and then there was MSN, and Google.  So you see, Google does not 
control what results we see on a search,

if we but realize that there are other search engines.  Mr. Jeeve's?


and with the purchase of Postini, they will be able to control what 
emails we actually receive. And now they are bidding on wireless 
spectrum.



OMG.  They are going to control what E-Mail's we receive?  Will that 
help with the spam problem?  LoL dude.
Nobody can control what E-Mail's you receive but your mail host and 
sadly it can only do so much.





They are just slowly taking over little pieces of the net... bit by 
bit... :(



Yeah, bad! evil! Google!  Fighting for net neutrality against all those 
nicey nice ILECs who have nothing but our

own best interests at heart.  :)




Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] CWA's suggested improvements of Form 477

[Michael Erskine]

Marlon K. Schafer wrote:



Their belief is that there are companies getting government moneys but 
are NOT actually servicing the customer bases that they are being paid 
to service.  That's why they want the 477 data.  To prove or disprove 
who's stealing what.


Ver ... cough cough  er... cough izon?



Overall, I agree with what they want to do.  I don't happen to think 
that the 477 data is all that helpful to our competitors but many of 
you do.   I told him that we'd not support his group in their 
lawsuit.  However, if they could find another way to go about proving 
that our competitors are stealing money from the tax payer we'd be all 
over it.  We'll see what comes of it.



Verizon and the baby bells can get what we cover very easily.  I'm for 
giving anyone that wants it the 477's.




I also told him that there was NO way that WISPA would support them in 
their efforts to force the FCC to release the 477 raw data.  
Especially in the case of those that chose to keep the data confidential.


Reasonable, I suppose.  Personally I'd like to have Verizon and Comtel 
data for my area.  Tell me where my competition isn't and I ***WILL*** 
get there before they can.



-m-

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] history of the internet

[Michael Erskine]

Aye, and cool also is the fact that DIRNSA paid BBN to do the development of
IP.  Early Linux IP stacks still contained the copy rights.  I think 
they were removed

around the 2.4 kernel release.


Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

This is too cool!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2QdEj8UjBc

marlon

 

Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board 
know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA 
lists.  The current Board is taking this under consideration at this 
time.  We want to know your thoughts.
 




Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Fw: REMINDER: 7/17 America's $480 Billion Spectrum Giveaway

[Michael Erskine]

Marlon;

You just need to present this to O'Reilly or some similar news person.

What is posted here is completely true.  How do we find someone that 
will give the TRUTH air time?


-m-


Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

fyi

- Original Message - 
From: New America Foundation 
To: New America Foundation 
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 10:49 AM

Subject: REMINDER: 7/17 America's $480 Billion Spectrum Giveaway


  Trouble viewing this email? Please go to http://www.newamerica.net/events/future  

  America's $480 Billion Spectrum Giveaway 
  How it Happened, and How to Prevent it from Recurring   


Tuesday, July 17, 2007
12:30 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.
(Light refreshments provided) 


New America Foundation
1630 Connecticut Ave, NW, 7th Floor
Washington, DC

   
  Spectrum has become one of the most valuable natural resources of the Information Age. Unlike other comparably valuable natural resources such as land and oil, it is owned by the public and allocated exclusively by the federal government. Also, unlike those resources, it is invisible both literally and figuratively: the general public does not understand-and consequently does not care about-its allocation. This combination of huge amounts of money at stake and public ignorance creates the classic conditions for special interest politics. 

  J.H. Snider, Research Director of the New America Foundation's Wireless Future Program, describes the causes and consequences of this special interest politics in his new report, The Art of Spectrum Lobbying: America's $480 Billion Spectrum Giveaway, How it Happened, and How to Prevent it from Recurring. At this brownbag lunch forum, Dr. Snider will present the findings of his study. This will be followed by a discussion by a distinguished panel of experts on natural resources, good government, and spectrum policy. The report is timely, as the FCC is currently considering auction reform in the 700 MHz band and numerous "minor" modifications worth tens of billions of dollars in the broadcast and satellite bands. 


  Featured Speakers
  J.H. Snider
  Research Director, Wireless Future Program
  New America Foundation 


  Bob Edgar
  President
  Common Cause

  Gary Bass
  Executive Director
  OMB Watch

  Drew Clark
  Manager, Telecommunications and Media Project
  Center for Public Integrity

  Moderator
  Michael Calabrese
  Director, Wireless Future Program
  New America Foundation 

  To RSVP for this event, reply to this email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with name, affiliation, and contact information. 

  If you have questions, call or email Liz Wu at (202) 986-2700 x315 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 
  The New America Foundation . www.NewAmerica.net

  1630 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20009
  Map & Directions . Additional Contact Info

  To be removed from this email list, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  

  




Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

  



Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at this time.  We want to know your 
thoughts.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] FCC Auction Should Allow for Open Wireless Network, Say Lawmakers

[Michael Erskine]

Gawd, it is this kind of thing that makes me wish I was a Democrat.  Why 
can't we all find the

middle?

-m-

David Hughes wrote:

FCC Auction Should Allow for Open Wireless Network, Say Lawmakers

By Kim Hart
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 12, 2007; D08

Key lawmakers on Capitol Hill yesterday supported the idea that regulators
should give consumers greater control over how they use their cellphones.

Several members of a House subcommittee voiced agreement with a proposal
that would require a portion of valuable airwaves about to be auctioned off
by the Federal Communications Commission to be used for an "open" network
that would connect to any mobile device or service. Such a rule would
benefit technology companies such as Google, Intel, Yahoo and Skype, who
want more ways to reach their customers without going through carriers. The
plan could hurt wireless carriers, who say unfettered access to their
networks would undermine billions of dollars of investment for high-speed
services.

This issue of open access lies at the center of the debate about rules that
will govern the spectrum auction, which are expected to be released this
month. FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin has proposed setting aside one-third of
the spectrum for an open network that would work with any cellphone.

Supporters of Google and its partners say an open network would promote
innovation by letting consumers use services on new devices like the iPhone
without being limited to a single network. But critics argue that placing
such conditions on the bidding process would actually stifle competition and
reduce revenues from the auction, which is expected to yield between $15
billion and $20 billion for the U.S. Treasury.

Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who chairs the subcommittee that handles
telecommunications and Internet issues, urged the FCC to "seize this
opportunity to create an open-access opportunity for wireless service in
this auction." He added that wireless carriers are "exerting far too much
control over the features, functions and applications that wireless gadget
makers and content entrepreneurs can offer directly to consumers."

Ranking Republican Fred Upton of Michigan countered by saying the wireless
market is already "vigorously competitive."

"No matter how you slice it," he said, the proposal "smothers investment in
a competitive market, and in the end would leave consumers worse off and
with fewer choices."

The four-hour hearing highlighted the divergent views of policymakers and
industry representatives on the consequences of using a slice of the
spectrum for an open-access network.

Steven E. Zipperstein, general counsel for Verizon Wireless, testified that
competition already forces wireless companies to invest in new products and
networks, ultimately benefiting consumers. He also said that any open-access
requirement would make the spectrum less valuable to companies like Verizon
Wireless.

But Jason Devitt, who runs a Silicon Valley start-up that sells wireless
products and services, disagreed. While the major carriers such as Verizon
Wireless and AT&T bring new products to market, he said, "there are so
many other products and services not getting in front of consumers" because
carriers act as gatekeepers.

"I'm an entrepreneur, and I'm mad as hell I have to ask for permission to
innovate," he said, referring to what he called the wireless companies'
"death grip" on the market.

Google, which has been lobbying Congress and the FCC in favor of open
networks, has not decided whether it will formally bid on a piece of the
spectrum and build a wireless network. On the company's public policy blog,
Google's Washington telecom and media counsel, Richard Whitt, wrote Tuesday
that the company was still interested in participating in the auction but
said "it's clear that the incumbent carriers have built-in advantages that
will prove difficult to overcome."

Google said it favors openness that allows all services, applications and
devices to work on the wireless network.

Some consumer advocates say the auction rules Martin proposed this week do
not go far enough to promote real competition. In addition to allowing any
device to connect to the network, the FCC should require the auction winner
to wholesale the spectrum to companies that impose no rules on what type of
services and equipment consumers can use, said Art Brodsky of Public
Knowledge, an advocacy group.

Martin seems to be testing the waters, Brodsky said, with draft rules that
seem to favor high-tech companies over the major telecom carriers.

"He wants to see the congressional and industry reaction," he said. "He's
trying to see what kind of support he'll get."


Would you like to see your advertisement here?  Let the WISPA Board know your 
feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists.  The current 
Board is taking this under consideration at t

Re: [WISPA] Fw: Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use

[Michael Erskine]

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

comments?

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

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



- Original Message - From: "John Oram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Marlon Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 6:52 AM
Subject: Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use


Since isp-wireless is now a political blog - here is something closer 
to "on-topic" :-)


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/07/BAGMNQSJDA1.DTL&tsp=1 



Well, I did see a bit of political chat on there the other day, but 
nobody got upset.  I even participated. I'm not sure how this is "closer 
to on-topic", but ...




SAN FRANCISCO
Judges OK warrantless monitoring of Web use
Privacy rules don't apply to Internet messages, court says

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Saturday, July 7, 2007

Federal agents do not need a search warrant to monitor a suspect's 
computer use and determine the e-mail addresses and Web pages the 
suspect is contacting, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.


A subpoena *is* required.



In a drug case from San Diego County, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of 
Appeals in San Francisco likened computer surveillance to the "pen 
register" devices that officers use to pinpoint the phone numbers a 
suspect dials, without listening to the phone calls themselves.


A subpoena *is* required.



The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of pen registers in 1979, 
saying callers have no right to conceal from the government the 
numbers they communicate electronically to the phone companies that 
carry their calls.


A subpoena *is* required.





Federal law requires court approval for a pen register. But because 
it is not considered a search, authorities do not need a search 
warrant, which would require them to show that the surveillance is 
likely to produce evidence of a crime.


OK.  This smacks of sensational journalism.  The author is making all 
sorts of noise about the court declaring that you have the same right to 
privacy over your bank records as you do over addressing information on 
your paper mail as you do over the records of your browsing habits and 
your email contacts.  This is about what is on the envelope, not what is 
in the envelope.





They also do not need a wiretap order, which would require them to 
show that less intrusive methods of surveillance have failed or would 
be futile.


Because they are not trying to do intercept, they do not need a wiretap 
order.  No change in existing law.






In Friday's ruling, the court said computer users should know that 
they lose privacy protections with e-mail and Web site addresses when 
they are communicated to the company whose equipment carries the 
messages.




In exactly the same way that they loose privacy protections with paper 
mail and magazine subscription information when you release that 
information to a company whose equipment carries the messages (the post 
office).



Likewise, the court said, although the government learns what 
computer sites someone visited, "it does not find out the contents of 
the messages or the particular pages on the Web sites the person 
viewed."


The search is no more intrusive than officers' examination of a list 
of phone numbers or the outside of a mailed package, neither of which 
requires a warrant, Judge Raymond Fisher said in the 3-0 ruling.


Both of which require a subpoena.  This author is writing this article 
to make sensational news of a non-news court decision.  NO PRECEDENT was 
set here.





Defense lawyer Michael Crowley disagreed. His client, Dennis Alba, 
was sentenced to 30 years in prison after being convicted of 
operating a laboratory in Escondido that manufactured the drug ecstasy.


Good.




Some of the evidence against Alba came from agents' tracking of his 
computer use. The court upheld his conviction and sentence.



Did they present a subpoena to his ISP?




Expert evidence in Alba's case showed that the Web addresses obtained 
by federal agents included page numbers that allowed the agents to 
determine what someone read online, Crowley said.



The expert was presumably the ISP.  The information would then have had 
to be obtained under subpoena.  Once the court orders the ISP to provide 
the evidentiary material the privacy statutes are satisfied





The ruling "further erodes our privacy," the attorney said. "The 
great political marketplace of ideas is the Internet, and the 
government has unbridled access to it."



The attorney is either ignorant of the law he is pleading or he is 
grandstanding to try to get something from the court system which nobody 
else gets.



I have had to satisfy two subpoena's in the past thirty days...  I 
wonder how many other members of the committie have seen this kind of 
activity...  Total

[WISPA] Interstate Service

[Michael Erskine]

If you are strictly an ISP, what legal constraints prevent or influence 
your ability to cross state lines with your service?


Thanks in advance

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

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

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

[WISPA] [Fwd: [Radio_Mobile_Deluxe] Venezuela's WiFi world record!!! About 238 miles using RMD]

[Michael Erskine]

Well there seems to be a new long distance PtP record.
http://www.eslared.org.ve/articulos/Long%20Distance%20WiFi%20Trial.pdf
--- Begin Message ---
For second time, this scientist broke a world record in WiFi, using inexpensive 
components, RMD for his radio planning and digital road maps from a free 
cartography project http://www.gpsve.net/ for Garmin GPS receivers.

This almost unique Venezuela's WiFi world record was about 238 miles in Line of 
Sigh.

Can be only compared with past year experiment between Pico El Aguila and El 
Baul, conducted by the same team liderated by the Venezuelan Radio Amateur, 
scientist and Los Andes University professor, Ermanno Pietrosemoli.





Best regards,

Marco-Luis

YV1HX/YV5

Caracas - Venezuela



- Original Message - 
From: villajulied 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: [GPS_YV] *Off Topic* Algo digno de Mención:


Verdaderamente interesante!!

http://www.eslared.org.ve/articulos/Long%20Distance%20WiFi%20Trial.pdf

Saludos,
Eduardo


  - Original Message - 
  From: jhendrickx00 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 7:51 PM
  Subject: [GPS_YV] *Off Topic* Algo digno de Mención:



  http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5038261

  Básicamente trata de: 

  Hoy les tenemos noticia de que un hacker Venezolano acaba de romper el
  récord mundial de enviar una señal WiFi lo más lejos posible, al
  lograr unas asombrosas 382 km (unas 238 millas) entre El Águila y la
  Montaña Platillón.

  El hacker es Ermanno Pietrosemoli, presidente de la Escuela
  Latinoamericana de Redes, y según él ha logrado 3 Mbps de velocidad en
  cada dirección, e utilizó mayoritariamente partes que se pueden
  comprar en cualquier lado.

  Que bueno!! Definitivamente necesitamos este tipo de noticias

  Jean H//



   

[Se han eliminado los trozos de este mensaje que no contenían texto]



*
   http://www.gpsyv.net
* 
Enlaces a Yahoo! Grupos


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- End Message ---
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites

[Michael Erskine]

Alan Cain wrote:

Michael Erskine wrote:

It seems that we are all quite busy, John.

I want to comment and agree with your sentiment if I may.

This list is a *professional* list.  People's politics are irrelevant 
and people who can not separate politics from their profession are 
immature socially.


Just tongue in cheek.  Of course this is a *professional* list. 
Terribly sorry. I'll just go over by the door.

LOL.

Alan, if there is anyone on this list who is less than professional it 
would be me.  I'll join you near the door.


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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Wifi @ a Motel

[Michael Erskine]

http://www.meraki.com

Modeling indicates that this little "high density" design is probably 
just the ticket for you application.


Michael Erskine
Kaballero.Com

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites

[Michael Erskine]

DSLR's Excuse for being off line

Thu Jun 21 21:58:42 EDT 2007
==
DSLR is offline at the moment, total power failure at the
data center we use (www.nac.net) an hour ago means we have
to bring servers up individually, and check for errors.

update:
Thu Jun 21 23:09:54 EDT 2007
Looks like this is going to take hours to sort out
and we're off to do an all nighter at the data center :(


Link to nac...  Which was working at time for post?

http://www.nac.net/

Which part of power outage is an excuse?  The part that
was spelled subpoena?

Ayup, twice in as many years..




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites

[Michael Erskine]

It seems that we are all quite busy, John.

I want to comment and agree with your sentiment if I may.

This list is a *professional* list.  People's politics are irrelevant 
and people who can not separate politics from their profession are 
immature socially.


I spent today with a man who is diametrically opposed to my political 
persuasion.  I was helping him to solve a wireless problem he had in a 
deployment. Both of us understand that we are strongly opposed to each 
other's opinion about many things, yet we not only had an excellent day 
together but we solved his problem.  When he installs the mesh we worked 
out today, his customer is going to be happy.  Not only did we have a 
really pleasant day, but we had lunch and left each other with respect 
at the end of the day...


This is not the place to talk about politics, you can do that at DSLR, 
or anywhere.  My boss did not pay for the privilege of  talking politics 
on this forum.  He paid  for membership because he thinks that WISPA is 
capable of providing his *business* a service which is worth more than 
the money he spent.  Politics are totally irrelevant.


Sadly, *everyone* has a political opinion.  Even the board is not immune 
from that problem; however, we can *all* agree that we will ensure that 
this forum is *APOLITICAL* and we can all ask our leaders to ensure that 
our board is *APOLITICAL*.


... and we all should expect nothing more or less than that ...

If you have a political need to satisfy, *TAKE IT SOME WHERE ELSE*

Thanks
-m-

John Scrivner wrote:
The next political grandstanding we see I will request the person(s) 
responsible get a week away from the list. This is NOT a place to spew 
your politics.

Scriv


Alan Cain wrote:


Michael Erskine wrote:


Jack Unger wrote:


Michael,

OK but please clarify. No need to be vague here.

Who was paranoid and/or what was the "slip"?

jack


Michael Erskine wrote:


Jack Unger wrote:



For the moment anyway, it appears that ISPs will not be required 
to block websites based on either "suspicion" or on the orders of 
governmental agencies that may or may not have specific political 
motivations to deny free speech in the name of protecting public 
"security" or "safety".


jack



Then there appears to be nothing to be either overly political in 
our comment or excessively paranoid in our thinking?  That is 
good.  Therefore let us try not to do that. Leadership is a tough 
place to stand neutral politically and it is understandable that 
the occasional slip happens.  Never the less, politics ans 
paranoia are not the purpose of WISPA.


-m-



Jack I quoted the pertinents.  There is no reason to suggest that 
"governmental agencies"  with "political motivations" would try to 
"deny free speech" in the name of "protecting security or safety".


My son (the Iraq war combat veteran with a purple heart) and I 
talked the other day.  He goes back next week.


I said, "Son, are we winning the war?"

He said, "That depends upon your definition of winning?"

He explained that he and his brothers are "bait".  Yep, his words 
exactly.  They are "bait" because Al Queda is too damn stupid to 
simply come to the US and kill people.  They take the easy target, 
Americans in Iraq.  Most folks don't get that.  I got it from day 
one...  six years ago.  You see, they can kill our children in Iraq, 
or they can kill our people in Boston, New York, or wherever.


Then he said, "but if you define winning as a self sustaining, 
independant, Iraqui government, that is going to take ten years."


What does that mean to you and me?

It means that Iraq is going to belong to Iran or Syria before it 
becomes a democracy.


It means that you are going to be paying $5.00 per gallon before you 
are paying $2.50 per gallon.



Vote for the liberal, pro gay, female of your choice...


Is Ron Paul liberal and pro-gay, or would Bloomberg be more fun?




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Adelstein backs Open Access 700

[Michael Erskine]

Sorry,  lost my thought.

First Verison was told to sell the retailer DSL at a resonable cost.

Then they kissed up to the FCC and suddenly they were selling 
"wholesale" DSL to the retailers at $23.50 while they were advertising 
the retailer's customers $14.95.  Sweet deal for Vz.


Then we got the bill...  Yeah, if you signed the contract, you know 
about that bill.  It was retroactive.  "Gee, you don't have xxx 
customers?  Well, you signed for that many.  Guess we have to charge you 
*rectroactively* for the xxx customers you do have."  Yeah,  I told the 
boss the day he signed that contract, "This is a fish hook."  Eat this 
and they will kill you.


He got a bill from Verizon for $45,000.00 because he did not "whole 
sale" enough customers at $9.00 per month more than the ONLY OTHER 
PLAYER IN HIS MARKET... Verizon.


Did we complain?  Yeah, we did.  We took it to the top in Verizon.  We 
were told, "Even the FCC can't do anything about it."


Verizon was right.


They bought the FCC and nobody complained.

Fancy that.
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Adelstein backs Open Access 700

[Michael Erskine]

Ok,

The whole idea is a bone tossed to the small fry.  If you are going to 
make it ISM, make it ISM.  Otherwise, please don't pee on me and tell me 
it is raining.  That just upsets me.


Lets review the Verizon deal of the past three years.  First they were 
required to let the "small fry" purchase DSL circuits at "whole sale" 
costs.  Then they were allowed to decide what "whole sale" meant.


Mike Hammett wrote:

I heard it straight from his mouth.


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


- Original Message - From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 11:16 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Adelstein backs Open Access 700


Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, a Democrat, said he supports the 
idea of imposing an "open-access" condition on companies bidding to 
acquire part of the spectrum.


http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSN2018478420070620 



--
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] ISP's Required to Block Sites

[Michael Erskine]

Jack Unger wrote:

Michael,

I appreciate your sharing your thoughts and your son's thoughts and I 
think I understand your concern.


Although he's not in the Army, my oldest son also works for the U.S. 
government and he too is assigned to serve in

a country that experiences daily street warfare.




I shall keep you son in my prayers as well.  Thank him for his work.


I'll continue to pray that your son and my son and all our sons can 
one day soon return home safely and

lead normal lives.
 jack


Aye.  That is a worthy prayer.  I'm sorry I got miffed last night.  
Politics is just such a touchy topic, especially with me these days.


Have a good day, Jack.

-m-

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites

[Michael Erskine]

And let us both hope that does not come at the cost of a few thousand 
civilian lives.


... because it most certainly could come at that cost ...

-m-

Jack Unger wrote:

Michael,

I appreciate your sharing your thoughts and your son's thoughts and I 
think I understand your concern.


Although he's not in the Army, my oldest son also works for the U.S. 
government and he too is assigned to serve in

a country that experiences daily street warfare.

I'll continue to pray that your son and my son and all our sons can 
one day soon return home safely and

lead normal lives.
     jack


Michael Erskine wrote:

Jack Unger wrote:

Michael,

OK but please clarify. No need to be vague here.

Who was paranoid and/or what was the "slip"?

jack


Michael Erskine wrote:

Jack Unger wrote:


For the moment anyway, it appears that ISPs will not be required 
to block websites based on either "suspicion" or on the orders of 
governmental agencies that may or may not have specific political 
motivations to deny free speech in the name of protecting public 
"security" or "safety".


jack



Then there appears to be nothing to be either overly political in 
our comment or excessively paranoid in our thinking?  That is 
good.  Therefore let us try not to do that. Leadership is a tough 
place to stand neutral politically and it is understandable that 
the occasional slip happens.  Never the less, politics ans paranoia 
are not the purpose of WISPA.


-m-


Jack I quoted the pertinents.  There is no reason to suggest that 
"governmental agencies"  with "political motivations" would try to 
"deny free speech" in the name of "protecting security or safety".


My son (the Iraq war combat veteran with a purple heart) and I talked 
the other day.  He goes back next week.


I said, "Son, are we winning the war?"

He said, "That depends upon your definition of winning?"

He explained that he and his brothers are "bait".  Yep, his words 
exactly.  They are "bait" because Al Queda is too damn stupid to 
simply come to the US and kill people.  They take the easy target, 
Americans in Iraq.  Most folks don't get that.  I got it from day 
one...  six years ago.  You see, they can kill our children in Iraq, 
or they can kill our people in Boston, New York, or wherever.


Then he said, "but if you define winning as a self sustaining, 
independant, Iraqui government, that is going to take ten years."


What does that mean to you and me?

It means that Iraq is going to belong to Iran or Syria before it 
becomes a democracy.


It means that you are going to be paying $5.00 per gallon before you 
are paying $2.50 per gallon.



Vote for the liberal, pro gay, female of your choice...




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites

[Michael Erskine]

Jack Unger wrote:

Michael,

OK but please clarify. No need to be vague here.

Who was paranoid and/or what was the "slip"?

jack


Michael Erskine wrote:

Jack Unger wrote:


For the moment anyway, it appears that ISPs will not be required to 
block websites based on either "suspicion" or on the orders of 
governmental agencies that may or may not have specific political 
motivations to deny free speech in the name of protecting public 
"security" or "safety".


jack



Then there appears to be nothing to be either overly political in our 
comment or excessively paranoid in our thinking?  That is good.  
Therefore let us try not to do that. Leadership is a tough place to 
stand neutral politically and it is understandable that the 
occasional slip happens.  Never the less, politics ans paranoia are 
not the purpose of WISPA.


-m-


Jack I quoted the pertinents.  There is no reason to suggest that 
"governmental agencies"  with "political motivations" would try to "deny 
free speech" in the name of "protecting security or safety".


My son (the Iraq war combat veteran with a purple heart) and I talked 
the other day.  He goes back next week.


I said, "Son, are we winning the war?"

He said, "That depends upon your definition of winning?"

He explained that he and his brothers are "bait".  Yep, his words 
exactly.  They are "bait" because Al Queda is too damn stupid to simply 
come to the US and kill people.  They take the easy target, Americans in 
Iraq.  Most folks don't get that.  I got it from day one...  six years 
ago.  You see, they can kill our children in Iraq, or they can kill our 
people in Boston, New York, or wherever.


Then he said, "but if you define winning as a self sustaining, 
independant, Iraqui government, that is going to take ten years."


What does that mean to you and me?

It means that Iraq is going to belong to Iran or Syria before it becomes 
a democracy.


It means that you are going to be paying $5.00 per gallon before you are 
paying $2.50 per gallon.



Vote for the liberal, pro gay, female of your choice...
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites

[Michael Erskine]

Jack Unger wrote:


For the moment anyway, it appears that ISPs will not be required to 
block websites based on either "suspicion" or on the orders of 
governmental agencies that may or may not have specific political 
motivations to deny free speech in the name of protecting public 
"security" or "safety".


jack



Then there appears to be nothing to be either overly political in our 
comment or excessively paranoid in our thinking?  That is good.  
Therefore let us try not to do that. Leadership is a tough place to 
stand neutral politically and it is understandable that the occasional 
slip happens.  Never the less, politics ans paranoia are not the purpose 
of WISPA.


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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Good Luck to all.

[Michael Erskine]

Peter R. wrote:

Michael Erskine wrote:


Dawn DiPietro wrote:


All,

Some on this list have felt it important to steer the discussion 
towards personal attacks and try to discredit me anytime I want to 
discuss how the rules and regulations affect this industry as a 
whole. My only agenda is to help others to understand how they can 
become compliant and do my best to explain how to read the rules set 
forth by the authorities. Since there is a lack of appreciation for 
my posts I feel I need to move on to a more professional venue. Good 
luck with all your future endeavors.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Ahem, Sorry to see you go.  I didn't see personal attacks but I 
didn't read all the posts.  I don't think it is necessary to tar the 
"venue" because there are people on the "venue" you can't get along 
with.


Why not stay and prove your points?  When you are right you are 
right.  Eventually the truth will come out.


-m-


Mike,

I know email is lousy communication because there is a lack of tone 
and emotion, but many of your responses come off as personal attacks. 



Assertion is exactly that.  Document.



Maybe it is supposed to be sarcasm, but as I read it, it was an attack.



Well, prove it and I will apologize.  Otherwise, I think that you are 
exactly right, the medium is not good and *anyone* can read *anything* 
into *nothing*.





If you don't agree, say why you don't agree.   No reason to just throw 
sarcastic jabs.  One of the rules of netiquette is that if you are not 
adding anything to the conversation, then don't post. (I am guilty of 
this at times myself).



Oh. Well you certainly missed my intent then.  I absolutely disagree 
with Dawn regarding her interpretation of the FCC's rulings.  Not so 
much because I have any particular understanding of them but because I 
figure that she really doesn't have any better understanding of them 
that anyone else here.  What qualifies her to speak for the FCC?  What 
qualifies me to speak for the FCC?


This argument which is foolish on it's face because the only authority 
who can speak to the issue is not being consulted, is simply a red 
herring.  The argument damages the list and gives someone an opportunity 
to make excuses about professionalism, and "personal attacks".  When in 
fact, my perception tells me that the argument is more about who the 
most knowledgeable person in the room is actually.


Clearly that sort of horse hockey and arrogance doesn't belong on a 
"professional" list.  I therefore thank God that well understand that I 
am an ignorant fellow who would never try to force my opinion upon 
anyone, even when I thought I was correct.


Yeah, it was a harped on issue. (It seems the longest threads involve 
MT).  From what I read, most people are offering opinions, not facts. 
And there is no shortage of Opinion. And in the case of MT, it is like 
arguing religion or politics -- you aren't going to change anyone's 
mind.  Hence, why at least one person thought the list was hijacked.


Well, you called that exactly right.  It is more like *religion* than 
fact. 




And threads like this with even perceived attacks, don't help the Org.
Well, you know the most unfortunate thing is when people "perceive" 
whatever makes them feel good, or works for their personal agenda.  
Sadly, that is what I "perceive" is happening here.


... but then perceptions are like opinions, and we all know what 
opinions are like ... :)

-m-

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Good Luck to all.

[Michael Erskine]

Dawn DiPietro wrote:

All,

Some on this list have felt it important to steer the discussion 
towards personal attacks and try to discredit me anytime I want to 
discuss how the rules and regulations affect this industry as a whole. 
My only agenda is to help others to understand how they can become 
compliant and do my best to explain how to read the rules set forth by 
the authorities. Since there is a lack of appreciation for my posts I 
feel I need to move on to a more professional venue. Good luck with 
all your future endeavors.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro
Ahem, Sorry to see you go.  I didn't see personal attacks but I didn't 
read all the posts.  I don't think it is necessary to tar the "venue" 
because there are people on the "venue" you can't get along with.


Why not stay and prove your points?  When you are right you are right.  
Eventually the truth will come out.


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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

[Michael Erskine]

Dawn DiPietro wrote:


Is it that I keep misunderstanding what you are trying to say? But I 
feel like this has been discussed before in no uncertain terms.


Maybe I wasn't there?  
I gladly yield to your apparent superior knowledge, until that is proper 
reflected in an FCC ruling and the only party who has authority do make 
these kinds of decisions has spoken.

I have more important worries.

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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

[Michael Erskine]

Dawn DiPietro wrote:

All,

I have come to the conclusion that there are some on this list that 
think FCC certification is up for debate. There may be a need for 
clarification in some cases but like it or not the FCC has the final 
say in what can and cannot be certified.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


I am glad that you get it now, Dawn.  I was under the impression that 
you thought you had the final say in what the FCC required to be 
certified.  Clearly I was in error.


Regards

Michale Erskine.
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

[Michael Erskine]

Ryan Langseth wrote:

I made one comment in this entire thread, which I am already regretting.
I hardly consider that vocal.
  
My bad, Ryan, My bad.  I did not mean to lump you in with a few vocal 
people..

My comment was not meant to be sarcastic, I would like to see a ruling
on it one way or another, but I am not going to run around trying to get
it. Its not worth my time, I don't need to start working 70-hour weeks.

this thread > /dev/null,
Ryan
  

I get as tired of this chatter as you and so many other's do.

-m-

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

[Michael Erskine]

Ryan,

A few of you are making a lot of noise.
You seem to want to talk a lot about how MT is not certified and you say 
"but if it were"...
Ryan, Why haven't you and those so vocal gone to the FCC with this 
question already?

The FCC is but a telephone call away.
http://www.fcc.gov/

It never ceases to amaze me how men and women of obvious intelligence 
will debate ad nasuiem
about how some government agency will rule on some topic, but never will 
they find the courage
to simply call that agency and ask them.  Rather they will wait till 
someone suggests it and then

after all the debate and posturing, say, "Yeah, Go ahead! You call them."

What a joke.
-m-

Ryan Langseth wrote:

On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 01:09 -0400, Michael Erskine wrote:
  

Rick;

I think that your opinion is like mine, both informed and experienced.  
I am perfectly comfortable with my opinion. And I did not get into an 
argument, or even suggest one was somehow a good idea.


That said, let me also say this.  If I don't have to have my router 
boards certified without radios because they are not intentional 
radiators, then when I add an FCC certified card to them I still don't 
have to have them certified because they are still what they were.


If you tell me that every PC running a pci wireless card has to be 
certified then I'll go with suggesting that a single board computer, 
which is designed to be a router, should also be certified like all 
those PC's otherwise, Rick, I think that both you and Dawn are incorrect.



1) drivers for the wireless card do not allow you to adjust power. 
2) comes with a small rubber ducky ant, not a 15db sector.


This discussion has come up on this list at probably least a dozen times
since I have joined (less than a year ago). MT is not certified, end of
chapter.  Ask MT they will, most likely, tell you the same thing. 

  
Like I said, I think your opinion is like mine, both informed and 
experienced.  I don't think you, or I, or Dawn, have the last word in 
this matter and I'd be happy to take the issue up with the FCC to get a 
reading from them.





Do this, I would like to read the next chapter, if they can get
certified though the PC method, I would take a look at their product.  


Ryan


  


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

[Michael Erskine]

Matt Liotta wrote:

George Rogato wrote:
Matt there is a tool for every job. Just because someone uses MT or 
Star does not mean they don't use canopy, trango or alvarion as well.


And nobody needs to explain why.


I am well aware of that, which is why we use so many different 
vendors' radios. We first started with Canopy on a recommendation and 
over time various operators (mostly WISPA members) introduced us to 
other vendors' radios. Every time we learned about a new vendor from 
the experiences of others. I respect the experience of my peers and 
find it quite useful in vendor selection. Why everyone is so defensive 
about MT I don't know. I personally don't care what equipment anyone 
uses. I am just curious why people use it in case it would be useful 
for us. But, no one seems willing to answer that.


-Matt


Matt,

We use it because:

1) I have a passing familiarity with  Linux.
2) It is infinitely configurable sort of like IOS but you don't have to 
spend two days in the manual to do a thirty minute configuration.
3) Give me MT on a router board and I will build you whatever network 
appliance you want in maybe half a day, but then I have never studied 
the device.
4) Efficient, it is as efficient as any other device out there.  We 
fully intend to rip out an eight year old network and replace with with 
90% MT, hanging on a plywood board on the wall.  Why?  Well we figure we 
can cut our power bill by about fifty percent, and when you have two 
dozen servers in a room, that is a pretty hefty recurring.  I can not do 
that with anything but routerboards and MT, that I know of...


I hope that you note my "willingness" to answer your question.  I 
wouldn't want you to think that MT users were cowards.  I'd rather have 
you believe that they just don't care if your question gets answered.


:)

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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

[Michael Erskine]

Rick;

I think that your opinion is like mine, both informed and experienced.  
I am perfectly comfortable with my opinion. And I did not get into an 
argument, or even suggest one was somehow a good idea.


That said, let me also say this.  If I don't have to have my router 
boards certified without radios because they are not intentional 
radiators, then when I add an FCC certified card to them I still don't 
have to have them certified because they are still what they were.


If you tell me that every PC running a pci wireless card has to be 
certified then I'll go with suggesting that a single board computer, 
which is designed to be a router, should also be certified like all 
those PC's otherwise, Rick, I think that both you and Dawn are incorrect.


Like I said, I think your opinion is like mine, both informed and 
experienced.  I don't think you, or I, or Dawn, have the last word in 
this matter and I'd be happy to take the issue up with the FCC to get a 
reading from them.


-m-

Smith, Rick wrote:

Hey Michael, Dawn's right.  Don't get into an argument on all this here,
again.

In order to be a LABELLED CERTIFIED system, you take antennas, jumpers,
pigtails,
minipci cards (already separately cert'd most likely), RB's, ENCLOSURE,
POE device, and
anything else that's necessary to that system running, and they throw it
in a quiet room
and put it through its paces.  If all falls within the proper bands for
operation as
you intended, you get the right to copy that device and slap pretty fcc
labels on it
and sell it as certified.   If not, fix it, resubmit it and try again.
Repeat until
certified.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Michael Erskine
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:41 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

Dawn;

I think you are reading the letter of the law and not understanding the 
reality.  An RB153 is *NOT* an intentional radiator any more than the PC


you mention is an intentional radiator.  The cards which are placed in 
the RB153 are intentional radiators just like the cards you put in that 
PC you mention.


You are trying to make an Apples vs Oranges comparison out of an Apples 
to Apples situation.


In other words you are incorrect in your reading of the rules.

-m-

Dawn DiPietro wrote:
  

Doug,

You have to certify the system as a whole INCLUDING THE ENCLOSURE and 
the power supply and you cannot deviate from the configuration that 
was certified.
This cannot be compared to a PC because that is a different 
certification. PC's are unintentional radiators the systems in 
question are intentional radiators.


Here is the link for more info on Modular Transmitters;
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-56A1.pdf

Here is a link to ADI and their certified system;
http://www.adiengineering.com/products/data/FCC-Whitepaper-R100.pdf

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Doug Ratcliffe wrote:

I found the FCC document regarding the modular certifications.  If 
Mikrotik
would submit (or someone submitted on their behalf, for them) their 
boards

and representative power supplies, for FCC testing, and passed (no
peripheral cards, they are SEPARATELY tested for FCC compliance by
  

the
  
manufacturer, it's in this document), they would become PCs and fall 
under
the 1996 FCC order listed below.  If we used VIA, or any number of 
already

modular certified FCC motherboards, it would all fall under this
  
order. 
  

Cases are not FCC certified only motherboards, peripherals and power
supplies.  So take a motherboard, power supply and a peripheral
  

wireless
  
card, put it into a NEMA enclosure, add an antenna that's certified 
for use

with that wireless card.  How is that not FCC legal?

It mentions an FCC DoC sticker some of us may be familiar with:

Trade Name  Model Number
FCC Assembled fromTested Components
(Complete System Not Tested)

I have a Compaq Presario 5100NX, Dell Dimension 8100 and Dimension 
2400 in
my repair department right now, NO FCC stickers on the cases. 
Part 15 as of May 4, 2007:

http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15-5-4-07.pdf

Listed on these pages:
Page 12-15: Regarding labelling for Declaration of Conformity, 
home-build

and kit computers.
Page 28 - Section 15.101 Equipment authorization of unintentional 
radiators.


See type of device, class B personal computers and peripherals:  
Declaration

of Conformity.
Page 29 subsections C and D - Personal Computers shall be authorized
  

in
  

accordance with one of the following methods

And of course, on page 86 the very vague "modular transmitter"
  

section
  

regarding "unique" antenna connectors, shielded RF components (I
  

believe
  

Ubiquity has cards like this).

I did a search in this document for the following words:
"operating system" 0 results.
"

Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

[Michael Erskine]

Dawn;

I think you are reading the letter of the law and not understanding the 
reality.  An RB153 is *NOT* an intentional radiator any more than the PC 
you mention is an intentional radiator.  The cards which are placed in 
the RB153 are intentional radiators just like the cards you put in that 
PC you mention.


You are trying to make an Apples vs Oranges comparison out of an Apples 
to Apples situation.


In other words you are incorrect in your reading of the rules.

-m-

Dawn DiPietro wrote:

Doug,

You have to certify the system as a whole INCLUDING THE ENCLOSURE and 
the power supply and you cannot deviate from the configuration that 
was certified.
This cannot be compared to a PC because that is a different 
certification. PC's are unintentional radiators the systems in 
question are intentional radiators.


Here is the link for more info on Modular Transmitters;
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-56A1.pdf

Here is a link to ADI and their certified system;
http://www.adiengineering.com/products/data/FCC-Whitepaper-R100.pdf

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
I found the FCC document regarding the modular certifications.  If 
Mikrotik
would submit (or someone submitted on their behalf, for them) their 
boards

and representative power supplies, for FCC testing, and passed (no
peripheral cards, they are SEPARATELY tested for FCC compliance by the
manufacturer, it's in this document), they would become PCs and fall 
under
the 1996 FCC order listed below.  If we used VIA, or any number of 
already
modular certified FCC motherboards, it would all fall under this order. 
Cases are not FCC certified only motherboards, peripherals and power

supplies.  So take a motherboard, power supply and a peripheral wireless
card, put it into a NEMA enclosure, add an antenna that's certified 
for use

with that wireless card.  How is that not FCC legal?

It mentions an FCC DoC sticker some of us may be familiar with:

Trade Name  Model Number
FCC Assembled fromTested Components
(Complete System Not Tested)

I have a Compaq Presario 5100NX, Dell Dimension 8100 and Dimension 
2400 in
my repair department right now, NO FCC stickers on the cases. 
Part 15 as of May 4, 2007:

http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15-5-4-07.pdf

Listed on these pages:
Page 12-15: Regarding labelling for Declaration of Conformity, 
home-build

and kit computers.
Page 28 - Section 15.101 Equipment authorization of unintentional 
radiators.


See type of device, class B personal computers and peripherals:  
Declaration

of Conformity.
Page 29 subsections C and D - Personal Computers shall be authorized in
accordance with one of the following methods

And of course, on page 86 the very vague "modular transmitter" section
regarding "unique" antenna connectors, shielded RF components (I believe
Ubiquity has cards like this).

I did a search in this document for the following words:
"operating system" 0 results.
"software" 2 results - neither of which have to do with operating 
systems.


Maybe this will be dismissed as a bad interpretation, but Mikrotik looks
suspiciously like a PC operating system, much like Windows or Linux.  
Not a
modular transmitter device like an AP.  I can put a CD in my home 
computer

and load Mikrotik on it.  So how is the device a Mikrotik OS runs on not
considered a PC?

Just some food for thought; with the information that backs it up 
right from

the FCC site.



  




--
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 repeat, Who is STRICTLY legal 100%?

[Michael Erskine]

Thank you, Tim for agreeing with me.

-m-

Tim Kerns wrote:

Ok... we've been down this road before. STOP NOW,

There is no need to rip WISPA apart AGAIN over this issue.

This is the general list and all of these messages are open to 
everyone through Google search. This continued debate on certification 
will only in the end destroy WISPA. I ask again STOP IT NOW.


Tim
CV-Access, Inc.

- Original Message - From: "Michael Erskine" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:51 AM
Subject: [WISPA] I repeat, Who is STRICTLY legal 100%?


It looks like the list is about to go down the finger pointing 
exercise of legalities, perceptions of legality, and interpretations 
of minutia.


That is probably not a good idea so in the true tradition of "casting 
the first stone", let me say this:


If you are absolutely certain that you are absolutely legal and you 
are willing to make that assertion on list then you have a dog in 
this fight.


Otherwise you probably done have a dog in this fight.

:)
--
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] I repeat, Who is STRICTLY legal 100%?

[Michael Erskine]

It looks like the list is about to go down the finger pointing exercise 
of legalities, perceptions of legality, and interpretations of minutia.


That is probably not a good idea so in the true tradition of "casting 
the first stone", let me say this:


If you are absolutely certain that you are absolutely legal and you are 
willing to make that assertion on list then you have a dog in this fight.


Otherwise you probably done have a dog in this fight.

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

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

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

Was [WISPA] MT Babble -- Now who is strictly legal?

[Michael Erskine]

Mike;

She is making perfectly good sense and she is not trying to make you 
look like anything.  When you deal with legal issues things are usually 
pretty black and white for the little guy.  Now if your name is Paris 
Hilton usually things are pretty much white all the time, except 
yesterday ;)  HAAHH!


As for legality and legal systems.  Ninety five percent of operators are 
mixing and matching antennas which are of higher gain than the factory 
approved antennas, so ninety five percent of operators have crossed the 
strict line at one point or another.


So let's have a show of hands.  Who can honestly say they are a 100% FCC 
approved shop? 


No fair lying!

-m-

Mike Hammett wrote:
I...I give up talking to you.  You take what I say and twist it 
horribly as if I am some renegade pioneer of MT.



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


- Original Message - From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble



Mike,

This does not make everyone using a Mikrotik system legal though. It 
is not just as easy as saying I use the same components in my system 
as the one certified so I am legal. In case you are unaware, this 
would also include the enclosure and the power supply even then you 
still need the documentation from the entity that certified the 
system. The system must be exactly the same soup to nuts.


Again for you to say that an FCC Certified Mikrotik System would make 
any Mikrotik legality a non issue is an unreasonable statement.


Below is a link that might be helpful;
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-56A1.pdf

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Mike Hammett wrote:

Well, it will be a non issue because there will be certified option.


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


- Original Message - From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..



Mike,

That is a big IF there. As I said before I don't see that every 
single hardware configuration deployed using Mikrotik will be 
covered. So to say that Mikrotik FCC System Certification will be a 
non issue is not a reasonable statement to make.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Mike Hammett wrote:
IIRC, if everything is the same, you can label it as containing X, 
Y, Z and be compliant.



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


- Original Message - From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..



Ralph,

I have to agree that even if there is a certified system in the 
works this will not make ALL Mikrotik installations certified. 
There will most likely be some uncertified gear left in the field 
as I don't believe that some wireless providers will rip out 
there existing hardware to comply with system certification. I 
also don't think it will be a non issue anytime soon.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Ralph wrote:
I am aware that there was talk of that and maybe even a business 
in the
works around it, but it is too early to say that in any certain 
time frame
it will be a non-issue... Unless you are making an announcement 
(or someone
is).  And I highly doubt certification will be retroactive to 
whatever
roo-tenna or tupperware box or whatever that people have been 
making

"systems" out of prior to then.

Don't get me wrong- I will be GLAD to see someone get MT certified.

Ralph


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

Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 7:13 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..


Ralph,

I think there is a committee gathering information on the most 
common hardware configurations to get something certified for 
Mikrotik.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Ralph wrote:


Why do you say this?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett

Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 6:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response 
today..


 Within a few months the whole MT certified system will
be a non-issue.


-
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/





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..

[Michael Erskine]

Ralph;

My bad, I thought I was still replying to Mike.

-m-

Ralph wrote:
Why bother?  Tell us why they should bother doing that?  It is one thing 
for you to bring a GPS unit to the device and quite another to ask the 
vendor to incorporate the GPS device on his board so please *justify* 
your comments.




Why bother? I have no idea.
Doug just told us that GPS synch was high on their list, but that GPS with
timing was too expensive. And I was replying to his comment.
I have been involved with developing AVL systems that use embedded engines
for over 10 years. The engines are now about 12 bucks. They have PPS
signals.
That should not be a show stopper especially if GPS is high on the list as
you say.   


Heck- Motorola has a cheap Oncore GPS engine on the CMM Micro. Integrating a
GPS engine is not rocket science if you are designing the board anyway- its
just a TTL signal.  If it is as high on the list as you say, then plugging
an engine onto a control board should be nothing.  It could piggyback right
on some sort of routerboard type piece.

  

Explain, WHY, I want them to incorporate a GPS on their boards...



   Well.. Uhhmmm... Maybe because I was replying to Doug Ratcliffe who said
it was high on the list. It certainly isn't ME who is asking. Why should I
justify it?  If I want GPS I can use Motorola. At least they are legal.

Now if I have misunderstood the message threading/quoting and it wasn't Doug
who said that, then just change the reference to whoever it really was who
said it.




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Michael Erskine
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 7:05 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..


Ralph;

Why bother?  Tell us why they should bother doing that?  It is one thing 
for you to bring a GPS unit to the device and quite another to ask the 
vendor to incorporate the GPS device on his board so please *justify* 
your comments.  Explain, WHY, I want them to incorporate a GPS on their 
boards...



Ralph wrote:
  

That isn't a reason to not use it.
A GPS Engine costs about 12 bucks. Almost all have the PPS output.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of Doug Ratcliffe

Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 3:01 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..

GPS Sync has been very high up on their list, however, the issue at 
the moment is that conventional serial GPS units lack the necessary 
timing precision for anything other than raw timesync.


  



  


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..

[Michael Erskine]

Ralph;

Why bother?  Tell us why they should bother doing that?  It is one thing 
for you to bring a GPS unit to the device and quite another to ask the 
vendor to incorporate the GPS device on his board so please *justify* 
your comments.  Explain, WHY, I want them to incorporate a GPS on their 
boards...



Ralph wrote:

That isn't a reason to not use it.
A GPS Engine costs about 12 bucks. Almost all have the PPS output.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Doug Ratcliffe
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 3:01 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..

GPS Sync has been very high up on their list, however, the issue at the
moment is that conventional serial GPS units lack the necessary timing
precision for anything other than raw timesync.  

  


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..

[Michael Erskine]

Mike Hammett wrote:
The N-Streme protocol has been around for a while and supports polling 
and resolves many disadvantages in WIFI.  N-Streme may not be able to 
work in 3.6 GHz as it may not be wifi enough.  They could couple the 
GPS sync with the N-Streme at least for other bands.





Thanks.  I did not know what TDM stuff was out there.


MT systems have the among (if not the best) performance out there for 
among the lowest pricing.  Within a few months the whole MT certified 
system will be a non-issue.



I will be happy to see that.  I am hoping that their CALEA stuff turns 
out as well as I expect it will.  Ditto Imagestream and OpenCALEA.


-m-





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


- Original Message - From: "Michael J. Erskine" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..



Mike Hammett wrote:

I know Mikrotik has been getting beat up over not having it.


I guess I wasn't paying attention.

  Pretty much any reason they stated why they couldn't do it was 
refuted by seemingly knowledgeable people.  As typical, when 
Mikrotik was proved incorrect, they acted like a bunch of 5 year olds.


I have yet to see them do any such thing.  It might be useful here to 
explain that Mikrotik is a vendor of router platforms.  It is nice 
that they have these cool little boards which can accept, *among 
other things* cool little radios.  That does not make them a wireless 
vendor.  For example, we are only marginally interested in using MT 
at the edge or our network but we are very interested in replacing 
our existing NOC with a something almost completly MT based.


So you see, it may well be that there is no real reason for MT to try 
to compete in the TDM arena.  They don't build radios.  They don't 
have their systems FCC certified but anyone who so chooses could 
probably make money doing that and then reselling their product.


All of that said, do you know of a TDM radio card that comes in a 
format which can be installed in a MT router?  For that matter do you 
know of a TDM radio which comes as any kind of card even PCI?  There 
really is no point to GPS sync on a CSMA/CA based system such as 
802.11x.


So the question I have is what sort of system components would one 
combine with an MT to start doing GPS based TDM communications and 
the second part is when would I use GPS sync in I was not running a 
TDM system?


Thanks

-m-




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


- Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..


I personally wish all manufacturers would standardize on a GPS sync 
system to allow for multiple reuse of frequencies. This is one 
place where Motorola definitely has the right idea. I have never 
seen a convincing argument for any reason why GPS sync is not a 
great thing for reuse of spectrum and I feel it should be 
encouraged by us to standards bodies who are designing the future 
generations of unlicensed radio platforms. Is there a downside to 
GPS sync?

Scriv


Mike Hammett wrote:

How difficult is it to engineer sectors with greater isolation?  
With only 50 MHz, we're going to have to become champions of 
spectrum reuse.



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


- Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 
982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Principal WISPA Member List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 1:00 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..



Getting closer to a 3650 reality!
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   (408) 907-6910 
(Vonage) Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator 
since 1999!

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



- Original Message - From: "Dan Lubar" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "FCC Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 9:54 AM
Subject: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..



Greetings everyone..

I wanted to make everyone aware of today's published response 
from the

FCC regarding the reconsideration of its 3650 NPRM..

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-99A1.pdf

Note that the petitions for reconsideration of this rule making 
have
been denied and 3650 band usage in the United States is now one 
step

closer.

Respectfully,

Dan Lubar
RelayServices
___
FCC mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/fcc


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..

[Michael Erskine]

Doug Ratcliffe wrote:

Actually, they have implemented a CSMA/CA bypass on their new 3.0 beta
versions, using their NStreme Polling protocol.
  

Cool.

GPS Sync has been very high up on their list, however, the issue at the
moment is that conventional serial GPS units lack the necessary timing
precision for anything other than raw timesync.
  
I can see where that would be the case 4800 baud is not going to be more 
accurate enough for a TDM system which is running "fine" slices.  "Fat" 
time slices would work if you limited the number of systems you were 
willing to negotiate sync with.  You wouldn't get too much waste using a 
less than optimal clock that way.  What accuracy are they seeing on 
serial GPS systems?

That said, I can't see why they couldn't sync based on ethernet broadcast
packets (lets say, the master radio sends a signal to the slave radios to
transmit).  That would only work on a per-tower basis, but a master GPS sync
could sync up on a lesser precision basis, more often, allowing all the
towers to stay fairly in sync. 

  
If you only had one clocking unit in the network the network would not 
need GPS sync.  The hardware clock on the clocking unit would be 
accurate enough.  The clocking unit could broadcast sync to all 
associated units.  This would probably require a star topology but it 
would work just fine, especially if you used GPS to tell each unit how 
far it was from the master clock so that it could account for RF 
propagation delay.


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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] the big wild card statement from the 3650 order

[Michael Erskine]

Patrick Leary wrote:

I was expecting to be excited about it to John, but the FCC took a wrong
term not with the lite-licensing part, but with the mandating HUMAN
cooperation. They should have stuck to the original plan of mandating
only EQUIPMENT cooperation.
Aye.  I have not been following the issue but if they are going to do 
TDM in any spectrum they should require equipment based cooperation 
because it is fair and impartial.  Until some vendor decides to play 
dirty with their firmware... but that is where the law should be 
applied.  Human cooperation can be problematic.

 The human part is broken before it even
starts -- you cannot have a rule that says you must make an agreement
with another party when the same rule tells you you have to scrap that
agreement and start over when the next person comes along.

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

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Michael Erskine
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 8:45 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] the big wild card statement from the 3650 order

John Scrivner wrote:
  
Patrick, I would expect that the optimistic perspective would be 
better here. This is better than no protections at all. At least we 
have a statement from the FCC that we must try to work together here. 
That is better than the "Wild West" we have in Part-15. For sure 
"owning" the spectrum in a license makes all the issues go away but 
there is nothing wrong with trying new things and I am very excited 
about this new 3650 "license light" type of idea. I have asked you to 
send me pricing and other information so I can be one of the first to 
launch 3650 when it is allowed legally. Please do not take the wind 
out of my sails when I am trying to buy your products. Besides, those 
lawyers don't scare me. If you remember I am married to one!:-)




... and you are *real* nice to her too, aren't you?  :)   John that is 
definately a "till death do us part" deal there.  The only thing more 
dangerous is being married to the owner of a restaurant.  If she dumps 
you, you starve.  ;)



  

Scriv


Patrick Leary wrote:



"(d) All applicants and licensees shall cooperate in the selection
  

and
  

use of frequencies in the 3650-3700 MHz band in order to minimize the
potential for interference and make the most effective use of the
authorized facilities.  A database identifying the locations of
registered stations will be available at
  

<http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls>.
  

Licensees should examine this database before seeking station
authorization, and make every effort to ensure that their fixed and
  

base
  

stations operate at a location, and with technical parameters, that
  

will
  

minimize the potential to cause and receive interference.  Licensees
  

of
  

stations suffering or causing harmful interference are expected to
cooperate and resolve this problem by mutually satisfactory
arrangements."

Words like "must," "shall," "expected," are loaded as they give
  

everyone
  

legal cover to bring people to the table yet it does not specify what
constitutes adequate effort or a resolution or a limit. MASSIVE
Pandora's Box that will keep lawyers busy. Build legal expenses into
your 3650 business models!



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






  


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

  


 
  








  


 
  

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


  


 
  


 

  


  


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] the big wild card statement from the 3650 order

[Michael Erskine]

Patrick Leary wrote:

And when she feeds you you have to worry about being poisoned maybe!?
  

Any man with a wife has that worry.  ;)

-m-

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

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Michael Erskine
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 8:45 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] the big wild card statement from the 3650 order

John Scrivner wrote:
  
Patrick, I would expect that the optimistic perspective would be 
better here. This is better than no protections at all. At least we 
have a statement from the FCC that we must try to work together here. 
That is better than the "Wild West" we have in Part-15. For sure 
"owning" the spectrum in a license makes all the issues go away but 
there is nothing wrong with trying new things and I am very excited 
about this new 3650 "license light" type of idea. I have asked you to 
send me pricing and other information so I can be one of the first to 
launch 3650 when it is allowed legally. Please do not take the wind 
out of my sails when I am trying to buy your products. Besides, those 
lawyers don't scare me. If you remember I am married to one!:-)




... and you are *real* nice to her too, aren't you?  :)   John that is 
definately a "till death do us part" deal there.  The only thing more 
dangerous is being married to the owner of a restaurant.  If she dumps 
you, you starve.  ;)



  

Scriv


Patrick Leary wrote:



"(d) All applicants and licensees shall cooperate in the selection
  

and
  

use of frequencies in the 3650-3700 MHz band in order to minimize the
potential for interference and make the most effective use of the
authorized facilities.  A database identifying the locations of
registered stations will be available at
  

<http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls>.
  

Licensees should examine this database before seeking station
authorization, and make every effort to ensure that their fixed and
  

base
  

stations operate at a location, and with technical parameters, that
  

will
  

minimize the potential to cause and receive interference.  Licensees
  

of
  

stations suffering or causing harmful interference are expected to
cooperate and resolve this problem by mutually satisfactory
arrangements."

Words like "must," "shall," "expected," are loaded as they give
  

everyone
  

legal cover to bring people to the table yet it does not specify what
constitutes adequate effort or a resolution or a limit. MASSIVE
Pandora's Box that will keep lawyers busy. Build legal expenses into
your 3650 business models!



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






  


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

  


 
  








  


 
  

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


  


 
  


 

  


  


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..

[Michael Erskine]

John;

John Scrivner wrote:
I personally wish all manufacturers would standardize on a GPS sync 
system to allow for multiple reuse of frequencies. This is one place 
where Motorola definitely has the right idea. I have never seen a 
convincing argument for any reason why GPS sync is not a great thing 
for reuse of spectrum and I feel it should be encouraged by us to 
standards bodies who are designing the future generations of 
unlicensed radio platforms. Is there a downside to GPS sync?

Scriv

You have never seen a compelling argument because there is not one. 
Motorola definitely goes in the right direction here.  Why?  Because a 
good TDM system can be designed to use the entire band *and* share that 
entire band with any other operator in the area.  Nobody does this at 
this time but lets do a "what if"...


What if there was a band like 900 (902-928) and it could be modulated as 
WiFi modulates 2.4 and it was TDM like Moto.  Total band capacity would 
be about 54 MBits/Sec maybe a bit more.  Now if it was GPS based TDM  
the AP radios could negotiate time slots such that the larger ISP would 
get more band width than the smaller ISP, separate encryption keys would 
allow these two users of the band to share it without being able to 
violate each other's network integrity.  Ooopppsss! A new operator 
enters the TDM network and guess what, he gets what he needs.  The APs 
negotiate that.  The problem is when the spectrum is truly full.  A new 
guy takes from everyone.


Such a system is easily within the existing expertise envelope.

I am with you, TDM simply rocks for it's spectral efficiency.  There are 
complications but those are engineering complications.   I'll touch them 
because they are an interesting problem.  First  RF  travels at the 
speed of light and when everyone is on the GPS clock and the same 
frequency they also need to know *where* everyone else is to efficiently 
allocate time slots so the  APs on different networks  have to 
communicate and negotiate bandwidth  allocation.  That would have to be 
done based upon need.  The AP would have to discuss it's needed spectrum 
with other APs who are also using the same spectrum and there would have 
to be some consensus generated in the geographic space which would 
fairly allocate time slots.


It can be done.  It would be fair and it would work quite well.  I would 
very much like to see something like this done in 700 MHz because the 
big players would absolutely *HATE* it for it's fairness to the small 
players.


-m-


Mike Hammett wrote:

How difficult is it to engineer sectors with greater isolation?  With 
only 50 MHz, we're going to have to become champions of spectrum reuse.



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


- Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Principal WISPA Member List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 1:00 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..



Getting closer to a 3650 reality!
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   (408) 907-6910 
(Vonage) Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator 
since 1999!

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



- Original Message - From: "Dan Lubar" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "FCC Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 9:54 AM
Subject: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..



Greetings everyone..

I wanted to make everyone aware of today's published response from the
FCC regarding the reconsideration of its 3650 NPRM..

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-99A1.pdf

Note that the petitions for reconsideration of this rule making have
been denied and 3650 band usage in the United States is now one step
closer.

Respectfully,

Dan Lubar
RelayServices
___
FCC mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/fcc


--
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] the big wild card statement from the 3650 order

[Michael Erskine]

John Scrivner wrote:
Patrick, I would expect that the optimistic perspective would be 
better here. This is better than no protections at all. At least we 
have a statement from the FCC that we must try to work together here. 
That is better than the "Wild West" we have in Part-15. For sure 
"owning" the spectrum in a license makes all the issues go away but 
there is nothing wrong with trying new things and I am very excited 
about this new 3650 "license light" type of idea. I have asked you to 
send me pricing and other information so I can be one of the first to 
launch 3650 when it is allowed legally. Please do not take the wind 
out of my sails when I am trying to buy your products. Besides, those 
lawyers don't scare me. If you remember I am married to one!:-)



... and you are *real* nice to her too, aren't you?  :)   John that is 
definately a "till death do us part" deal there.  The only thing more 
dangerous is being married to the owner of a restaurant.  If she dumps 
you, you starve.  ;)




Scriv


Patrick Leary wrote:


"(d) All applicants and licensees shall cooperate in the selection and
use of frequencies in the 3650-3700 MHz band in order to minimize the
potential for interference and make the most effective use of the
authorized facilities.  A database identifying the locations of
registered stations will be available at .
Licensees should examine this database before seeking station
authorization, and make every effort to ensure that their fixed and base
stations operate at a location, and with technical parameters, that will
minimize the potential to cause and receive interference.  Licensees of
stations suffering or causing harmful interference are expected to
cooperate and resolve this problem by mutually satisfactory
arrangements."

Words like "must," "shall," "expected," are loaded as they give everyone
legal cover to bring people to the table yet it does not specify what
constitutes adequate effort or a resolution or a limit. MASSIVE
Pandora's Box that will keep lawyers busy. Build legal expenses into
your 3650 business models!



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





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









 


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




 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Want a bucket truck?

[Michael Erskine]

Mike Delp wrote:

Mike,
It was a pleasure talking with you at MUM.
  
The pleasure was mine, sir.  I will probably make more of those MUM's 
when they are closer to home.


-m-

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Want a bucket truck?

[Michael Erskine]

What do you want from me?

I give you an idea...

You all talk smack.  I am supposed to care when you choose to remain 
ignorant?


NAW I don't think so.  Believe what you want.  All it means is there 
are more places for my "FIRE TRUCK" to put down poles.


So, yeah... talk it up...
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Dense canopy for Canopy was: Want a bucket truck?

[Michael Erskine]

John;

Regarding 900 MHz in general, in dense cover you will be limited to 
about 1/2 mile but that is very dense cover.  Typically we see pretty 
good coverage at 1.5 miles for an 80' tall pop.  Tree coverage in our 
area is probably about 65 percent.


We see that client side radios don't like to have tree coverage too 
close to them.  If you can get a couple of hundred yards between the 
client and the tree line things usually work better.


We like Canopy 900 because it gives us reasonable bandwidth, and range, 
and we get name recognition.  It is a good radio for working in a harsh 
environment.  It has it's problems.


An omni is a good way to start but we only put omni's at sites where we 
know that we are not going to hit 20 subs in the near future.  We 
install three 120 sectors.  Moto doesn't support this.  They want you to 
install 6 sectors, but that is just stupid when you have maybe 400 
rooftops in your coverage area.  A six sector Canopy system can carry 
way more than 400 subs.  We have had ap's with more than 80 subs on them 
and you could not tell it by the latency.  Awesome performance.


We did give up on the Motorola backhauls because Tranzeo is doing such a 
good job with their stuff.  We have 19 pops in now and there are still 
three poles waiting for us to get to them with the truck.


We have learned to stay away from vertical polarization.  There are 
tricks you can do with the "omni-directional wave guide" antennas and 
sadly the vendors are not doing them.  Those antennas do not really have 
an omnidirectional pattern.  We are paying a premium for Katherien 
antennas which are horizontally polarized but which are also truly 
omni.  Both antennas are good antennas.  One has a more bidirectional 
pattern and you need to be aware of that.  That is all.




John Scrivner wrote:
What kind of actual radius are you seeing in "dense canopy" with your 
900 MHz Canopy systems? I am considering some Canopy 900 MHz in my 
area. Can you share your good, bad and ugly with this type of build 
out? How are you setting up your POPs? Omni? Sectors? Any help for a 
Canopy newbie?

Thanks,
Scriv


Michael Erskine wrote:


John Scrivner wrote:

I guess you guys do your signal checks with this truck? Any 
downside? Can it be used to lift anything up to a tower top?

Scriv


Scriv;

We don't do signal checks with the truck.  If our installers can't 
make link from the ground or using few mast sections to check the 
signal we don't install.  I tell them not to climb.  Sometimes they 
do climb but I discourage it.  I'd rather just put in another pop.


The truck we have has 900 lbs lift capacity in the bucket.  It is an 
80' snorkel truck and cost $9,999.00 @ sixty thousand miles.


We use it to install and maintain our pops.  Remember we are a 900 
MHz canopy shop.  We deploy our pops at about 80 feet in dense canopy.


-m-




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Want a bucket truck?

[Michael Erskine]

Blake Bowers wrote:

My hat is off to all three of you.  To your sons, and to you
for evidently doing a great job raising them.

Thanks.


- Original Message - From: "Michael Erskine" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Want a bucket truck?



Blake Bowers wrote:
Advantages of a fire truck over a standard bucket truck (other 
than coolness)?

Price?
Who maintains their bucket truck like the FD maintains their engines?

As a long time fire department guy, it all depends on the
department.

Thanks Blake for your service.  One of my sons is a fire fighter, the 
other is in Iraq.  I was just told today that fire fighting is 
statistically a more dangerous profession than law enforcement.





I was a lucky man.  The kids raised a fairly good dad.  :)


Thank you, sir.
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Want a bucket truck?

[Michael Erskine]

Blake Bowers wrote:
Advantages of a fire truck over a standard bucket truck (other than 
coolness)?

Price?
Who maintains their bucket truck like the FD maintains their engines?

As a long time fire department guy, it all depends on the
department.

Thanks Blake for your service.  One of my sons is a fire fighter, the 
other is in Iraq.  I was just told today that fire fighting is 
statistically a more dangerous profession than law enforcement.


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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Want a bucket truck?

[Michael Erskine]

Mike Hammett wrote:

It comes with a wench?!

Can I winch the wench back if she tries to run away?



LOL  PSSS
Everybody loves a good wench... winch.

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


- Original Message - From: "Michael Erskine" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Want a bucket truck?



Mike Hammett wrote:

I remember Mike Delp talking about having a fire truck.

Advantages of a fire truck over a standard bucket truck (other than 
coolness)?

Price?
Who maintains their bucket truck like the FD maintains their engines?
Miles?
Wench?
Ladders?
Generator on board?
Storage?
and the cool toys ;)
:)
-m-



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


- Original Message - From: "Michael J. Erskine" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 6:28 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Want a bucket truck?


I just figured I'd show you folks that want a bucket truck an 
interesting idea that we have already exploited:


http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/FIRE-TRUCK_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ63733QQihZ006QQitemZ160124248487QQrdZ1 



--
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] Want a bucket truck?

[Michael Erskine]

John Scrivner wrote:
I guess you guys do your signal checks with this truck? Any downside? 
Can it be used to lift anything up to a tower top?

Scriv

Scriv;

We don't do signal checks with the truck.  If our installers can't make 
link from the ground or using few mast sections to check the signal we 
don't install.  I tell them not to climb.  Sometimes they do climb but I 
discourage it.  I'd rather just put in another pop.


The truck we have has 900 lbs lift capacity in the bucket.  It is an 80' 
snorkel truck and cost $9,999.00 @ sixty thousand miles.


We use it to install and maintain our pops.  Remember we are a 900 MHz 
canopy shop.  We deploy our pops at about 80 feet in dense canopy.


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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Want a bucket truck?

[Michael Erskine]

Mike Hammett wrote:

I remember Mike Delp talking about having a fire truck.

Advantages of a fire truck over a standard bucket truck (other than 
coolness)?

Price?
Who maintains their bucket truck like the FD maintains their engines?
Miles?
Wench?
Ladders?
Generator on board?
Storage?
and the cool toys ;)
:)
-m-



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


- Original Message - From: "Michael J. Erskine" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 6:28 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Want a bucket truck?


I just figured I'd show you folks that want a bucket truck an 
interesting idea that we have already exploited:


http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/FIRE-TRUCK_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ63733QQihZ006QQitemZ160124248487QQrdZ1 



--
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] Want a bucket truck?

[Michael Erskine]

Blake Bowers wrote:

You do have to wonder why they only have the one
picture online.


There are plenty of pictures.  Scroll down.

:)


- Original Message - From: "Michael J. Erskine" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 6:28 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Want a bucket truck?


I just figured I'd show you folks that want a bucket truck an 
interesting idea that we have already exploited:


http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/FIRE-TRUCK_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ63733QQihZ006QQitemZ160124248487QQrdZ1 



--
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] Copper landlines gone by 2013

[Michael Erskine]

Sam Tetherow wrote:


Sam Tetherow wrote:
Hmm, I'll take that bet.  People that make these types of claims 
obviously haven't been in areas where you can go for more than 40 
miles with no cell service, on a major highway, not to mention 
getting off the beaten path to individuals homes.  Some times it 
really is more economical to string copper than put up towers.


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless



Naw.  It is almost never cheaper to string copper than to put up towers. 
 It is just that existing copper is cheaper than any alternative.


In the panhandle of Oklahoma my grandfather ran five miles of copper on 
poles ten feet off the ground to get to his home.  That copper was in 
place till 1960 when the ILEC's decided they could make a profit by 
replacing it.


That economy is still in play.

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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] FM Radio and Ethernet

[Michael Erskine (804) 436-9428]

Mike Hammett wrote:

Then why don't WISPs deploy a proper grounding system?



Hmmm, Ok, I should have read the entire thread.  Any WISP who does not 
deploy a proper grounding system is asking for it.


We ground to copper "halos" that are attached to three eight foot copper 
clad rods.  There are grounded surge supressors between each antenna and 
each radio and there are grounded surge supressors on each PoE line 
between the radio and the switch.


The switch is grounded.

So I can't say why someone else does not deploy a proper ground but I 
can say that we have not lost a radio in two years.  I hasten to add 
that is not braggin' and please don't get me God, I didn't mean it to 
sound like anything but thanks.


-m-



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


- Original Message - From: "Michael Erskine (804) 436-9428" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FM Radio and Ethernet



Mike Hammett wrote:
Why is it, then, that there aren't more radio\TV station outages due 
to lightning?  They have to have done something to reduce their 
chances of a direct hit on those 1200' towers.




A good grounding system that bypasses the communications systems.



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


- Original Message - From: "Scott Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FM Radio and Ethernet


Nothing stops direct hits.  A spark that traveled through miles of 
air isn't really going to care what else is between it and the ground.

Good ground is the lifesaver for nearby hits that induce wild voltages.

And following the code is always best for the health and safety of 
the people.


Jonathan Schmidt wrote:

This has been my experience, Scott.

I have seen lightening enter an enclosed device and simply burn a 
hole right

in the middle of a circuit board with nothing else damaged.

On my desktop PC, lightening apparently came in through the cable, 
through
the cable modem (destroyed) and down the Ethernet, through the 
Linksys (OK)

to the PC and the only other damage was the motherboard Ethernet.  I
replaced the modem and bought a PCI Ethernet card and it's fine.  
What paths
lightening took in this incident or the above incident is anyone's 
guess.


There is still controversy over the value of diverting or directing
lightening and/or lightening leaders and streamers to protect 
against a

direct hit.

It's really fascinating and here's a fun place to start you thinking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_rod

Nevertheless, good enclosures fed with metal conduit that's well 
grounded

appear to do well but the local ordinances need to be heeded.

. . . j o n a t h a n

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

Behalf Of Scott Reed
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 5:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FM Radio and Ethernet

If properly grounded, the opposite is true.  The ground wire should 
direct the lightning to ground (hence the name) and away from your 
equipment.


Not to mention that in the case of an equipment failure that causes 
the power supply to put 120VAC on the case, etc., the ground wire 
directs the current to ground, not you.  It is always about 
safety.  I would much rather have dead equipment than dead 
personnel because an electrical system was not properly grounded.


Dennis Burgess wrote:

YOU DO NOT WANT TO RUN A GROUND WIRE!  The reason for that, is 
that then it
gives lightning etc the ability to go though your equipment vs the 
tower

ground!  B




On 5/22/07, Scott Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Again,
Check your local code before you copy this.  No ground is not 
allowed

here, unless somehow you can prove it is a temporary extension cord.
Neither is low voltage in same conduit at 120VAC.

That said, small changes to Dennis' configuration will make good
installation.

Run the cat5 in a separate (metallic) pipe (rigid, EMT, Sealtite,
whatever you like).  Ground the bottom of the pipe.  I would 
leave the

top ungrounded, but that is:
   1) personal preference (eliminates ground loops).
   2) determined by which way gives you the best performance, least
interference from the FM.
You may want to use cat5e or cat6 as the twist is tighter, thus
accepting less interference as well.

Run a ground wire with the power.  Even for the low current 
required at
the top, I would probably run 14AWG or 12AWG. Lowers the 
inductance, may
allow less noise to be induced on the power leads.   Besides, 
14AWG is

the smallest wire you can run with a 15amp breaker.  Same thing with
ground loops; I would probably use a plastic box and thus isolate 
the

power ground from

Re: [WISPA] FM Radio and Ethernet

[Michael Erskine (804) 436-9428]

Mike Hammett wrote:
Why is it, then, that there aren't more radio\TV station outages due to 
lightning?  They have to have done something to reduce their chances of 
a direct hit on those 1200' towers.




A good grounding system that bypasses the communications systems.



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


- Original Message - From: "Scott Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FM Radio and Ethernet


Nothing stops direct hits.  A spark that traveled through miles of air 
isn't really going to care what else is between it and the ground.

Good ground is the lifesaver for nearby hits that induce wild voltages.

And following the code is always best for the health and safety of the 
people.


Jonathan Schmidt wrote:

This has been my experience, Scott.

I have seen lightening enter an enclosed device and simply burn a 
hole right

in the middle of a circuit board with nothing else damaged.

On my desktop PC, lightening apparently came in through the cable, 
through
the cable modem (destroyed) and down the Ethernet, through the 
Linksys (OK)

to the PC and the only other damage was the motherboard Ethernet.  I
replaced the modem and bought a PCI Ethernet card and it's fine.  
What paths
lightening took in this incident or the above incident is anyone's 
guess.


There is still controversy over the value of diverting or directing
lightening and/or lightening leaders and streamers to protect against a
direct hit.

It's really fascinating and here's a fun place to start you thinking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_rod

Nevertheless, good enclosures fed with metal conduit that's well 
grounded

appear to do well but the local ordinances need to be heeded.

. . . j o n a t h a n

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Scott Reed
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 5:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FM Radio and Ethernet

If properly grounded, the opposite is true.  The ground wire should 
direct the lightning to ground (hence the name) and away from your 
equipment.


Not to mention that in the case of an equipment failure that causes 
the power supply to put 120VAC on the case, etc., the ground wire 
directs the current to ground, not you.  It is always about safety.  
I would much rather have dead equipment than dead personnel because 
an electrical system was not properly grounded.


Dennis Burgess wrote:

YOU DO NOT WANT TO RUN A GROUND WIRE!  The reason for that, is that 
then it
gives lightning etc the ability to go though your equipment vs the 
tower

ground!  B




On 5/22/07, Scott Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Again,
Check your local code before you copy this.  No ground is not allowed
here, unless somehow you can prove it is a temporary extension cord.
Neither is low voltage in same conduit at 120VAC.

That said, small changes to Dennis' configuration will make good
installation.

Run the cat5 in a separate (metallic) pipe (rigid, EMT, Sealtite,
whatever you like).  Ground the bottom of the pipe.  I would leave the
top ungrounded, but that is:
   1) personal preference (eliminates ground loops).
   2) determined by which way gives you the best performance, least
interference from the FM.
You may want to use cat5e or cat6 as the twist is tighter, thus
accepting less interference as well.

Run a ground wire with the power.  Even for the low current 
required at
the top, I would probably run 14AWG or 12AWG. Lowers the 
inductance, may

allow less noise to be induced on the power leads.   Besides, 14AWG is
the smallest wire you can run with a 15amp breaker.  Same thing with
ground loops; I would probably use a plastic box and thus isolate the
power ground from the enclosure, tower, etc.

One good way to do it is consult a local commercial/industrial
electrician.  They will know the code for your area.  But they don't
always understand radio and induced voltages.


Dennis Burgess wrote:


We are located at 400 foot on a FM tower, 100,000 watts at the top of
1400
foot.

The total length of CAT 5 is 440 foot or so, and plug directly into a
RB532
at the top of the tower (power at the top as well)

We ran a felexable conduit up the tower, inside, 16awg solid

copper, one


black, one white, (for the 110), NO GROUND, and also in that same
conduit,
we ran good outdoor, sheilded CAT5, UV Resistant (even though it is


fully


enclosed), and we get a 100meg link without issues for the most part!

One thing we did do, is ensure that we were on the other side of

all the


transmission lines running up the tower.

Dennis



On 5/22/07, Andrew Niemantsverdriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


I am co located on a tower with an FM transmitter. The FM station

runs


at 105Mhz. We were running one AP at 10 half duplex to overcome the
havoc that the FM station created on our ethernet feed. We now

need to


run that l

Re: [WISPA] FM Radio and Ethernet

[Michael Erskine]

I am 54.  My grandma (94) tells a story about lightening and my mother 
(73) verifies it.


In the olden days (when men were men and sheep ran scared), grandpa ran 
a phone line thru the brush for a few miles to get to the homestead on 
the ranch.  It was only a few feet off the ground, say ten maybe.  A 
thunderstorm came along and grandma was carrying a pan of water across 
their kitchen when a ball of lightening popped out of the phone and 
floated across the room.  They both report that is floated around for a 
moment and seemed to "see" the water and went straight to the pan.  
Knocked grandma on her kiester and scared the heck out of everyone 
else.  After that when a storm came they disconnected the phone at the 
pole.  I guess sometimes it is best to let someplace else be the best 
ground.


:)

-m-

in the middle of a circuit board with nothing else damaged.



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] What is WISPA? was Promotion of services on-list

[Michael Erskine]

Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:

You have shown your good nature many, many times George.  Thanks for
the hard work and peace making.

He is a good man.

  Are you sure you're not Canadian?


Peace making is not something peculiar to Canadians.  In fact that is what
American's do best.  We make peace.  Whether the bad guys want it or not.
;)  Once it was "Pax Romana", but no longer.  Now it is "Pax Americana".

Lonnie

Lonnie, you are one of the great Linux developers.  Is it really 
necessary to
let politics and opinion determine the direction you will take your 
business?


Hey, nobody says you have to help us become compliant but I can assure
you that if you do not make your product meet a standard, you will loose
business on this side of that border.

Why let that happen?  We have to do what we have to do, just like Canada
had to do what it did when it pulled it's people from Iraq.  I don't think
anyone needs to blame anyone here...  Nobody needs to believe all sorts
of foolishness about what American WISPs have to do or what hoops we
have to jump through, either.

Why not jump through the hoops and get it over with.  If you have a good
product and it is profitable, it will be a better product and more 
profitable

to get the certifications taken care of, won't it?

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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] What is WISPA? MORE THAN YOU!

[Michael Erskine]

JohnnyO wrote:

Good Riddens !

*Singing* Oh Say Can you see... By the stars early light was so 
...


JohnnyO
Don't hate me because I am American.  :) 


ahem, "dawn's early light" ...  ;)

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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Frontline this week

[Michael Erskine]

Dawn;

I'm going to try to watch it and I am an old school spook.  I'm going to 
watch it with an open mind because I think that this is a very important 
topic and we should all stay as informed about it as we possibly are able.


It is unfortunate that in this day and time everything has to be 
politicized and that the general population has simply become a tool for 
the political parties.  The (the parties) deamonize each other to ensure 
that at election time they only need to collect a few percent of the 
electorate to win an election.  It serves only themselves and cheats a 
great nation.


Thanks for the heads up.

Mike Erskine

Dawn DiPietro wrote:

All,

I guess you are right. With all the bad decisions I have made recently 
as to what is appropriate to post here I am in need of a short 
vacation from the list.

Maybe I will see some of you around.

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Jeff Broadwick wrote:

Yup,

Don't go there, or this will turn into a political argument. 
Jeff
 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mac Dearman
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:38 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Frontline this week

Dawn,

  That's like poking a big fat rattle snake with a short stick! :-)

Someone is going to get bit.


Mac



 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro

Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 7:55 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Frontline this week

Anyone else going to watch this one?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/
--
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] Mea Culpa

[Michael Erskine (804) 436-9428]

I owe everyone on this list a clarification and an apology because I 
provoked Peter to anger.


There are those who believe that getting the person you are debating 
with to become angry somehow makes a point.  I am not one of those 
people and the only way to prove that is to apologize to him in the same 
forum where I offended him.


Peter, I did not intend to provoke you and I am sorry that I did. 
Personally I was not offended by your language and never even noticed it 
until I made a similar mistake on another list and started reviewing posts.


To those of you on this list, I am sorry that I disrupted the list and 
I'll be more careful in the future.


Special thanks to Rick who does such an excellent and thankless job of 
moderating the lists.


Michael Erskine
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] RE: Are you for sale?

[Michael Erskine (804) 436-9428]

LOL.  I see I ruffled a few feathers.  Of course that works both ways.

Russ;

You say if we could all just work together and get along.  Absolultly, 
and working together towards a goal which is *mutually* healthy is one 
thing.  Spewing FUD is another thing entirely.


Then you said, I should find my delete key if I don't agree with what is 
being said here.  Not going to happen, Russ, sorry.  If I choose to 
state my opinion and I can do so without being insulting, I have as much 
right to do that as you, or Matt.  I'm sure you understand that.


Peter;

You say, > Is there FUD? Sure. Why? Mainly because no one wants to take 
the time to
do their own Due Diligence or talk to an Authority. They want the Cliff 
Notes from the list. No such thing in this case.


I guess you didn't actually read the FAQ or you would understand how it 
was actually realized.  The last markup on the WISPA FAQ was done by the 
FBIs CALEA attorney.


You may have researched my background but I'm betting you didn't find 
much.  You say


Mike, I tried to check the references for the people who wrote the FAQ. 
Uh. You guys have no more experience than Matt or me or Marlon.


We don't have any less experience either.  There is a very talented 
group working on the CALEA committee and they have gone to talk to the 
people who have the responsibility for implementing CALEA compliance for 
all LEAs.  They are not just spending a few dollars and letting their 
attorneys, or their vendors tell them what they have to have.


Don't you suppose if we had any worries at this point that we would be 
in here telling you the sky was falling ourselves?  Honestly, WISPA asks 
for volunteers to work with the FBIs CALEA group.  People volunteer. 
People take the time to read the docs, collect the questions, and then 
they spend their own time and money to visit the Quantico to present the 
questions.  They come home clean up the results, pass the results before 
the attorney for the FBI and deliver them to you folks and people like 
you, and Matt, and Russ want to continue running around the room like 
henny penny.


Help yourselves, then, if you must.

Matt;


 Michael Erskine wrote:
> What makes you such an authority on CALEA, Matt?  What qualifications 
> or experience with CALEA do you bring to the table that give credence 
> to the fear that you are mongering on this list?  Purchasing 
> compliance does not constitute authoritative knowledge.

>

For one, we are actually CALEA compliant.

So are we.  The only difference is that when and if we are ever served I 
am going to have to work a couple of all nighters.


Getting there required
understanding the requirements, speaking with our attorney, and working
with our vendors. We did this months ago as a necessary and timely thing
to knock out.

This does not make you personally any more knowledgeable than any other 
person who has done the same thing.  Most of the committee have done 
pretty much the same thing.


Since that time we have watched people who aren't
compliant act as authorities on the subject. So back at you... What
qualifications or experience with CALEA do you bring to the table?

Go review the FAQ document and see what it tells you about how that 
document came to exist.


 BTW,
working experience with LEAs doesn't mean much since CALEA as it is
being applied to ISPs is entirely new and no one has experience with it.

Privacy rights and privacy law are not new. Title III and Title 10 are 
not new. Evidence handling is not new.  Intercept is not new.  CII is 
not new.  As a matter of fact Matt, the ONLY thing that is new is that 
CALEA now applies to packet switched traffic.  You knew that.


> Most ISPs will be able to satisfy the CALEA requirements for less than 
> $200.00.  Yep, that is what I said.  When the WISPA Standard gets 
> blessed, and I did say when, there will be an open source 
> implementation.  It will provide safe harbor and it will run on low 
> end hardware.  Having had the personal experience of working with the 
> LEAs a number of times since about 1990 I feel perfectly comfortable 
> in expressing my dismay at the egregious misinformation and negative 
> speculation you have posted on this list.  CALEA compliance is only 
> going to be a problem for those WISPs who refuse to do due diligence 
> in coming to compliance.

>
Today is May 9th and your discussing a standard that doesn't exist and 
hasn't be approved. What happens to all the ISPs waiting on WISPAs 
standard come Monday?


Well actually we have been in collusion with the FBI on this and Monday 
they are going to send out every available agent to arrest and imprison 
any WISP who is not compliant.   We have been collecting their addresses 
for months now...  ;)  You're safe though because you have been 
preaching the word of truth to the myriad non-compliant WISPs out there 
and we 

[WISPA] RE: Are you for sale?

[Michael Erskine]

Matt;

This is going to be a bit rough but I feel the need to call a this as I 
see it.  You are running roughshod on a lot of people with your fear 
mongering and it needs to be called into the open.  So...


> >> In discussions with others it has come to my attention that several
> >> companies are looking to exit the business for various reasons not
> >> the least of which is CALEA. If you're serious about exploring an
> >> exit, contact me offlist. I am interested in a variety of options
> >> from taking a controlling interest to an outright cash buyout.
> >>
> >> I don't want to sound like a vulture, but ...

... but you most certainly do sound like a vulture ...

What makes you such an authority on CALEA, Matt?  What qualifications or 
experience with CALEA do you bring to the table that give credence to 
the fear that you are mongering on this list?  Purchasing compliance 
does not constitute authoritative knowledge.


Most ISPs will be able to satisfy the CALEA requirements for less than 
$200.00.  Yep, that is what I said.  When the WISPA Standard gets 
blessed, and I did say when, there will be an open source 
implementation.  It will provide safe harbor and it will run on low end 
hardware.  Having had the personal experience of working with the LEAs a 
number of times since about 1990 I feel perfectly comfortable in 
expressing my dismay at the egregious misinformation and negative 
speculation you have posted on this list.  CALEA compliance is only 
going to be a problem for those WISPs who refuse to do due diligence in 
coming to compliance.


Honestly Matt, what you have demonstrated on this list is that you have 
a talent for fear mongering and then exploiting the poor gullible people 
who bought into that fear mongering.


Mind you that is only my opinion, but I am keeping it.  I strongly 
encourage anyone who is currently in fear of CALEA to just go reread the 
FAQ.  Read it critically, ensure that you have filed your documents thru 
Kris to the FBI.  Then relax.  The FBI is working very well with the 
committee.  Progress is being made very quickly on a tough problem. 
Just relax people.  Don't make a stupid mistake based upon pure horse 
hockey and spin which only serves to benefit those who would exploit 
your fear.  If you want to sell, don't let CALEA compliance be any part 
of your decision.





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt -or- The SKY is NOT falling.

[Michael Erskine (804) 436-9428]

I have seen numerous posts on the WISPA list indicating that a cost
effective and compliant solution for this issue was being worked on and
would become available in the near future.



|| I think that is wishful thinking on some people's part. When you see
|| companies like Cisco struggle to provide a minimum of support on a small
|| subset of their products you can begin to imagine the scope of the
|| problem. Every post I have seen where people have suggest a solution, 
the

|| suggestion only solved one specific part of CALEA. Solving part of the
|| problem is not enough.

Actually you have to remember that a CALEA request will pracitcally
never touch upon all the different information that CALEA defines.  The
only real time streaming requirement is VoIP and similar protocols.

In all other cases a competent *nix wizard could script a basic sniffer
solution in an afternoon, which would satisfy the intercept requirement in
any collection scenario that does not include a real time component.

The CALEA compliance committee  clearly stated that the LEAs are
going to be working with the ISP to  help them satisfy the subpoena.
They further said that they would usually be working with the ISP even
before a subpoena would be issued.


I have seen numerous posts indicating that small providers should not be
concerned and that attaining CALEA compliance would not put them out of
business.


|| I would argue that small providers should be very concerned. Not just
|| about CALEA, but a concerted effort on the part of large telcos to ruin
|| competition through seemingly legimate public safety issues.

This is true, but this issue is not one of the ones the telco's are using.
Sadly, CALEA was originally intended for circuit switched networks only
unfortunately the LEAs worked in concert to convince the FCC that it
should also apply to packet switched networks.  This is primarily due to
the fact that VoIP and other real time communications protocols were
rapidly migrating to the IP world.  There was not time to get congress
to address the packet switched world with a new law.


The facts remain that our business model currently is profitable and we
are
providing a valuable service in a rural area.  The added costs of CALEA
compliance jeopardize our ability to continue providing service.  Who
needs
to explain to the hundreds of happy customers I currently service in a
rural
community that they no longer have high speed internet and don't have an
alternative broadband solution?

|| Unfortunately, many consumers will lose as small companies go under. 
This

|| won't be the first policy that is designed for the good of the many as
|| opposed to the few. It isn't fair, but it is done.

Small companies will not go under in becoming CALEA compliant.  First the
smaller you are the less likely it is that you will *ever* be subject to a
subpoena.  Second, the smaller you are the *easier* it will be to 
satisfy the

subpoena because you will likely *know* the target personally.  Your network
architecture will be important but CALEA does not permit the LEAs to
require to have to significantly modify your network.  Read the FAQ.


If someone has better information on how a small ISP can become CALEA
compliant in a cost effective manner, please contact me as I am all ears.
If there is better information or a defined solution being presented on
the
WISPA member list, I am more than willing to pay membership dues to 
access

it.  If there isn't a better solution being discussed there, I would just
as
well save the due money as it will probably not be long before we are out
of
business or sell to a larger competitor and the membership will be
useless.



Save the dues money.  It will probably be all you need to become 
compliant.  :(


|| 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
|| service provider should have plans for being CALEA compliant or have 
plans

|| for exiting the business. This one is different than E911; the liability
|| will be staggering.

If you did not file your 477, why not?  If you want a voice with the FCC 
they

need to know we exist.  The FCC states that they have only had about 400
wireless ISPs file their 477s.  There is also a pretty good estimate 
that there

are about 4000 wireless ISPs.  If we want the FCC to listen to us as much as
they listen to the ILECs, we need to make as much noise as the ILEC's.  If
we prove to them that we don't care what they do (and not filing that 477
speaks volumes in that regard), what are they to do?

People, CALEA is not going to kill your business.  Read the FAQ.  Discuss
the FAQ.  This ripping of the vestments and beating of the breasts is for
f