Re: [WISPA] [OT] The USPS never ceases to amaze me

2007-06-18 Thread Rich Comroe
Loved the image.  What really amazes me is that you can mail to anywhere in the 
galaxy for a mere 41 cent first class postage.

Rich

  - Original Message - 
  From: Mike Hammett 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 1:42 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] [OT] The USPS never ceases to amaze me


  Haha, don't worry about it.  The laughter is worth more than $1.


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


  - Original Message - 
  From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 1:20 PM
  Subject: [WISPA] [OT] The USPS never ceases to amaze me


   http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2007-June/036509.html
   http://images.bureau42.com/sa/wispamail.jpg
   
   Mike Hammett, your $1 will be there in a couple days.
   
   David Smith
   MVN.net
   -- 
   WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
   
   Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
   http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
   
   Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
  
  -- 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Man fined for stealing WiFi

2007-05-28 Thread Rich Comroe

From the article:

-
In fact, Milanowski was unaware the practice known as piggybacking was 
illegal, so his did a bit of legal research. I had a feeling a law was 
being broken, said Milanowski. He found Michigan's Fraudulent access to 
computers, computer systems, and computer networks law, a felony punishable 
by five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

-

I'm surprised by the law used by the prosecution.  About 15 yrs ago I gave 
expert witness testimony in a similar case in Ohio, but Ohio's law was 
specific to breaking into a government run computer network.  In the Ohio 
case the computer network being broken into was operated by and for public 
safety, and there was a clear public safety danger in people breaking in. 
The person who broke in was intentionally eavesdropping on public safety 
communications.  I felt it was an appropriate and important law, but it's 
quite doubtful that the coffee shop's wifi could ever be considered a 
government computer network, even if police may sometimes sit there using 
it along with other customers.  Laws can vary from state to state, but I'm 
very surprised that any state would apply this law to a public computer 
network like the Internet that's actually INTENDED for public use.  If the 
Michigan felony law is not specific to government networks I think it should 
be changed.  I think it's wrong for a 5yr felony crime being applied to 
public wifi.


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Smith, Rick
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Principal WISPA Member List ; WISPA General List ; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 8:46 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Man fined for stealing WiFi



Precedents are starting :)

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3175

--
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] A Box

2007-05-12 Thread Rich Comroe

http://www.netburnerstore.com/embedded_ethernet_development_p/nndk-mod5270lc-kit.htm
$99 includes core module, development board, ac adapter, ethernet cable, 
crossover cable, serial cable, and software (including a collection of 
canned applications).  Lowest priced hardware I've seen.


- Original Message - 
From: Blake Bowers [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 2:00 PM
Subject: [WISPA] A Box



I need a box.
What I want is a 802.11 type box, that has alarm
contacts.  When the alarm contact is triggered (N/C N/O)
then it would send an email.  The box would probably
have an IP address that would allow it to be connected
to the local WISP, as well as a wired connection that
could be connected to a router.

Maybe a SCADA device.

Picture the possiblities.  A large manufacturing complex
could keep track of all their functions - and security, through a WISP, 
even geographically diverse locations.


Any ideas?


--
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] Try it out vs. Cingular

2007-05-11 Thread Rich Comroe
We ran Skype from our windows phones.  Why?  Just to see if it'd work as an 
internet app!   :-)  Worked fine.


Rich

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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Try it out vs. Cingular


Last I checked, 3G systems have horrible latency, therefore are not good 
for VoIP.



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


- Original Message - 
From: Pete Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Try it out vs. Cingular


The $10/mo for web access with Sprint ONLY applies to the use on the 
phone. When you plug in the data cable, and use it as a modem, its like 
$0.30/kb. Learning that lesson cost me.

The unlimited phone-as-a-modem or data card rate is around $39/mo.

Does anyone know if there are drivers/capabilities to link a data card to 
a Mikrotik or StarOS box? I guess that there are other Linux drivers out 
there, so my thinking may work.
I have considered for some time the possibilities of making a box to 
mount in my car (car-puter) with a Sprint (or Cingular, or Verizon, or 
whoever) cellular type data connection, with a WIFI client as the primary 
(or secondary) mode of connection. With DDNS, access to the dash mounted 
camera, GPS stream, etc should be easy enough, making it a roll-your-own 
LowJack type system. Also, in the car, an ethernet jack to plug a laptop 
into could be nice, as well as opening the possibilities to put in an ATA 
to make VOIP calls, as well as adding a WIFI AP. $39/mo for unlimited 
data connectivity, especially if it gives the speed/latency required to 
do VOIP, seems like a bargain compared to $129/mo for 2000 minutes. I 
guess a Windows-based system could do all of those things, but the 
RAM/processor/etc/boot time/bluescreens associated with Windoze don't 
seem to make it conducive to this type of project, IMO.


The car-puter installation plan things that I have read about seem to 
focus on GPS and MP3 playing. Since my wreck 6 yrs ago, where I couldn't 
prove to the insurance company (5 eyewitnesses from every direction from 
the intersection and a police report weren't good enough) that I had the 
green light. I have been thinking about a car-mounted DVR with cameras in 
the grill, the dash, and in the back to offer video defense in a car 
accident claim. Showing the judge, the insurance agent, or whoever a DVD 
of the video surveillance of the accident could save a lot of time and 
hassle.


What I wish someone would sell for a car (these things probably all exist 
in one form or another with various systems) is a computer that will act 
as a:
   DVR security cam recorder (cam pointed at the driver seat to prosecute 
the car thief, + cams on bumpers to witness accidents)

   Data port (ethernet + WIFI AP)
   Web server (with DDNS support to access the stored data, even when the 
car is away from the house, like at an impound yard or after being 
stolen)

   MP3 player
   Realtime ODBII scanning/recording/diagnostics of the car.
   VOIP system.
   GPS stream recording. (to show he teenage driver when/how fast she was 
really driving)


I would think that these things could all be incorporated for under $2k, 
mounted in the trunk, and it would be something that would sell like 
crazy for $3k installed.


I guess what I would like is a retail version of this with more features:

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/how20/d04305f2dbbf1110vgnvcm104eecbccdrcrd.html

pd


Rich Comroe wrote:
What a rip!  Sprint told me it's only $300-400 to get out of a Sprint 
contract.  What's it cost to early terminate a Cingular contract?  Why 
doesn't he just terminate?  Getting a $1200 monthly bill is ridiculous! 
UNLIMITED data to a Sprint windows phone is only about $10/month, and 
there's no way to limit it to not operate tethered to a computer (other 
than unreasonably large download usage).  And it's EVDO, so it blows 
away that measley 125 - 175 kbit.  I really think those PCMCIA cards are 
a rip-off for service cost compared to just getting unlimited data 
service to your cellphone.  I love ppc6700 windows phones ... a lot 
lighter and smaller than a laptop yet nearly as capable.


Rich

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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Try it out vs. Cingular



oh, I'm most certainly under $1200, even for a whole year.  :-p

Anyone have experience getting out of a bad Cingular deal?


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


- Original Message - From: Scott Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Try it out vs. Cingular


Even if he can't get out of the Cingular contract, I would think 
paying you your

Re: [WISPA] Try it out vs. Cingular

2007-05-11 Thread Rich Comroe
 server (with DDNS support to access the stored data, even when the 
car is away from the house, like at an impound yard or after being stolen)

   MP3 player
   Realtime ODBII scanning/recording/diagnostics of the car.
   VOIP system.
   GPS stream recording. (to show he teenage driver when/how fast she was 
really driving)


I would think that these things could all be incorporated for under $2k, 
mounted in the trunk, and it would be something that would sell like crazy 
for $3k installed.


I guess what I would like is a retail version of this with more features:

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/how20/d04305f2dbbf1110vgnvcm104eecbccdrcrd.html

pd


Rich Comroe wrote:
What a rip!  Sprint told me it's only $300-400 to get out of a Sprint 
contract.  What's it cost to early terminate a Cingular contract?  Why 
doesn't he just terminate?  Getting a $1200 monthly bill is ridiculous! 
UNLIMITED data to a Sprint windows phone is only about $10/month, and 
there's no way to limit it to not operate tethered to a computer (other 
than unreasonably large download usage).  And it's EVDO, so it blows away 
that measley 125 - 175 kbit.  I really think those PCMCIA cards are a 
rip-off for service cost compared to just getting unlimited data service 
to your cellphone.  I love ppc6700 windows phones ... a lot lighter and 
smaller than a laptop yet nearly as capable.


Rich

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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Try it out vs. Cingular



oh, I'm most certainly under $1200, even for a whole year.  :-p

Anyone have experience getting out of a bad Cingular deal?


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


- Original Message - From: Scott Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Try it out vs. Cingular


Even if he can't get out of the Cingular contract, I would think paying 
you your normal rates would cost less than $1200 to Cingular.  Suggest 
that your unlimited service is still less expensive than overages.


Mike Hammett wrote:
I have a potential customer that wanted to try out my service.  He's 
got money, so I wasn't afraid he was looking to get something for 
nothing.  He has Cingular now and can only get 125 - 175 kbit out of 
it. I clearly can provide a faster less latent service for a lower 
monthly cost (costs him $70/month).


Apparently he wasn't on the unlimited rate plan and got hit with a 
$1200 bill.  He doesn't think he can get out of his Cingular.  *argh*


That said, can anyone think of a way to hookup a standalone fax 
machine with the Cingular card?  I can't contemplate anything at all.



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




--
Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration
www.nwwnet.net

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Try it out vs. Cingular

2007-05-10 Thread Rich Comroe
What a rip!  Sprint told me it's only $300-400 to get out of a Sprint 
contract.  What's it cost to early terminate a Cingular contract?  Why 
doesn't he just terminate?  Getting a $1200 monthly bill is ridiculous! 
UNLIMITED data to a Sprint windows phone is only about $10/month, and 
there's no way to limit it to not operate tethered to a computer (other than 
unreasonably large download usage).  And it's EVDO, so it blows away that 
measley 125 - 175 kbit.  I really think those PCMCIA cards are a rip-off for 
service cost compared to just getting unlimited data service to your 
cellphone.  I love ppc6700 windows phones ... a lot lighter and smaller than 
a laptop yet nearly as capable.


Rich

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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Try it out vs. Cingular



oh, I'm most certainly under $1200, even for a whole year.  :-p

Anyone have experience getting out of a bad Cingular deal?


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


- Original Message - 
From: Scott Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Try it out vs. Cingular


Even if he can't get out of the Cingular contract, I would think paying 
you your normal rates would cost less than $1200 to Cingular.  Suggest 
that your unlimited service is still less expensive than overages.


Mike Hammett wrote:
I have a potential customer that wanted to try out my service.  He's 
got money, so I wasn't afraid he was looking to get something for 
nothing.  He has Cingular now and can only get 125 - 175 kbit out of it. 
I clearly can provide a faster less latent service for a lower monthly 
cost (costs him $70/month).


Apparently he wasn't on the unlimited rate plan and got hit with a $1200 
bill.  He doesn't think he can get out of his Cingular.  *argh*


That said, can anyone think of a way to hookup a standalone fax machine 
with the Cingular card?  I can't contemplate anything at all.



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




--
Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration
www.nwwnet.net

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC

2007-04-30 Thread Rich Comroe
. I wish that had been 
part of the plan but that does not mean I do not support the interests of 
public safety. It only means I would have liked to be part of the plan. 
Especially when so many of us WERE part of the plan in the post-Katrina 
efforts where we delivered when many others did not.


Rich, is the plan for public safety to use IP based communications in this 
band? If not then why not? What is the plan? Will other interests like 
private or muni broadband be able to use the spectrum when public safety 
is quiet? If not then why not?

Thanks,
Scriv



Rich Comroe wrote:



- Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC


Justin...  I am aware of the problems revolving around the inability to 
talk

to each other via voice radio.   I would tend to agree that frequency
coordination seems to be a terrible issue.   The cited reasons for 
this

was the 9-11 problems with coordination of emergency services, and NO
hurricane problems.  Nobody blew up the NO radio communications 
facilities.
They just died because they lacked any means of self support when the 
power
went out, and the phone and the agencies weren't talking to each other, 
and

didn't seem to know who to talk to for what.That's just the outside
perception, at least.



Your outside perceptions are completely wrong.



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



If you're not sure what the broadband network is for, how could you have 
already called the plan absurd?




I'm still confused as to why we can't have fire department radios that 
can
talk to the cops, ambulances, and whoever else.   A lack of spectrum 
doesn't
seem to be issue, rather it appears to be political boundaries between 
each

department, and no mechanism to deal with widespread communications
problems.



Completely wrong.



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

rational plan for dealing with widespread disasters.

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



I wouldn't begin to know where to start to explain it to you.  I don't 
believe you have any notion whatsoever of what the issues and challenges 
are of public safety communications that are being addressed.  If you 
wanted to learn, you could start with the PSWAC report ... it's public 
and on-line. But what amazed me is how you conclude with no knowledge 
that the public safety broadband communications plans are absurd and 
can't possibly work. Why would you jump out and slam a field that you 
know nothing about?  Yet you wonder where people get the notion from that 
you're anti-gov.  Why not just say excuse me on that one and we'll move 
on.


Rich



- Original Message - From: Justin Comroe 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC




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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC


I hate to say it, but it looks like the FCC is going to squander
massive
 opportunity, and instead, settle for some money...

 (sigh).

 This nationwide broadband network for public safety is absurd.

Why would you say this?  I served on the technology committee that 
drafted

the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) report to the
FCC/NTIA.  The initiative was a response to the first world trade 
center
bombing in 93 when public safety agencies from all surrounding 
communities
converted on South Manhattan ... and yet the public safety officers 
could
more easily throw stones / rocks at each other than communicate on 
their
radios.  In PSWAC we focused on compatibility (I know you think it's 
an
evil, innovation stifling word), but of course the difference in 
frequency

assignment of every agencies equipment was equally problematic.  A
nationwide allocation of compatible equipment seems eminently 
logical


as

the cleanest solution to the dilema.  Of course, little improved 
following

the later 2001 trade center bombing, and money didn't get ponied up for
replacement equipment for a long time (not until the 2006 democratic
congress identified this as one of their first 100 hrs issues [the
connection being that the 9/11 commission identified this as a 
lingering

unaddressed problem that public safety communications had yet to be
funded]), but this is essentially the logic behind the 4.9GHz


allocation

Re: [WISPA] Posting limits?

2007-04-30 Thread Rich Comroe

From: Ryan Langseth [EMAIL PROTECTED]

One more thing, If you haven't watch/listened to it yet (do it twice):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4216011961522818645


What a terrific link!  Perfectly appropriate!  At times LMAO because of how 
true the lessons are when applied to some of the threads and posters on this 
list.  It's perfect how you didn't disclose the title ... that came as such 
an appropriate surprise when I opened the link.  Everyone should view it 
(and do it twice just as you suggest).  But for everyone who might not have 
taken the link, the title is How Open Source Projects Survive Poisonous 
People (And You Can Too).  Doesn't have to be an Open Source Project for it 
to be applicable.  You don't have to view it all ... but everyone should at 
minimum view the section on list-server behavior.  I give it 2 thumbs up.


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Ryan Langseth [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Posting limits?



On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 14:07 -0500, John Scrivner wrote:

Is anyone else getting tired of sorting through the exhaustive amount of
email we are getting on the public list? Much of it is good stuff but I
think we see some people who are posting more than we need to all see. I
am thinking we should consider a post count limit per day per person. I
would like to hear feedback on this concept.


I think limiting posts would be a last resort fix to the problem.

Believe it or not, this is a common problem on almost all email lists.

The main problem is a lack of netiquette on this list. Good email
manners, would fix the problem.
http://www.albion.com/netiquette/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette  read Usenet and Email topics


This is a list of the common annoyances I see on this list,

1) If you are replying to every message in a thread, STOP, Think, Let
others respond, read, then reply.
http://www.ryanlangseth.com/~langseth/Email.png

2) DON'T Start a new thread by hitting reply to the last message in
another thread and changing the Subject line. It is bad form, and will
show up wrong in the mailing list archives and some people's email
client (mine).  If you want to branch the subject prefix with your new
topic and was:  eg.  Email List Etiquette WAS: Posting Limits?
http://www.ryanlangseth.com/~langseth/Email.png

3) Remember this list is public, indexed by google.  What you post here,
much like MySpace it is going to be around for a very long time.  Also
remember this list is the public face of Wispa, if we want to _not_ be
treated like cowboys by others (Telcos, FCC, Govnmt, etc), don't act
like cowboys on the list.

4) DON'T troll.  Trolls look for fights, they argue for the sake of
arguing, they reduce conversations to personal attacks.

One more thing, If you haven't watch/listened to it yet (do it twice):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4216011961522818645


Ryan
--
InvisiMax
System Administrator
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC

2007-04-28 Thread Rich Comroe


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC


Justin...  I am aware of the problems revolving around the inability to 
talk

to each other via voice radio.   I would tend to agree that frequency
coordination seems to be a terrible issue.   The cited reasons for this
was the 9-11 problems with coordination of emergency services, and NO
hurricane problems.  Nobody blew up the NO radio communications 
facilities.
They just died because they lacked any means of self support when the 
power
went out, and the phone and the agencies weren't talking to each other, 
and

didn't seem to know who to talk to for what.That's just the outside
perception, at least.


Your outside perceptions are completely wrong.



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


If you're not sure what the broadband network is for, how could you have 
already called the plan absurd?




I'm still confused as to why we can't have fire department radios that can
talk to the cops, ambulances, and whoever else.   A lack of spectrum 
doesn't
seem to be issue, rather it appears to be political boundaries between 
each

department, and no mechanism to deal with widespread communications
problems.


Completely wrong.



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

rational plan for dealing with widespread disasters.

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



I wouldn't begin to know where to start to explain it to you.  I don't 
believe you have any notion whatsoever of what the issues and challenges are 
of public safety communications that are being addressed.  If you wanted to 
learn, you could start with the PSWAC report ... it's public and on-line. 
But what amazed me is how you conclude with no knowledge that the public 
safety broadband communications plans are absurd and can't possibly work. 
Why would you jump out and slam a field that you know nothing about?  Yet 
you wonder where people get the notion from that you're anti-gov.  Why not 
just say excuse me on that one and we'll move on.


Rich



- Original Message - 
From: Justin Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC




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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz decision at FCC


I hate to say it, but it looks like the FCC is going to squander massive
 opportunity, and instead, settle for some money...

 (sigh).

 This nationwide broadband network for public safety is absurd.

Why would you say this?  I served on the technology committee that 
drafted

the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) report to the
FCC/NTIA.  The initiative was a response to the first world trade center
bombing in 93 when public safety agencies from all surrounding 
communities

converted on South Manhattan ... and yet the public safety officers could
more easily throw stones / rocks at each other than communicate on their
radios.  In PSWAC we focused on compatibility (I know you think it's an
evil, innovation stifling word), but of course the difference in 
frequency

assignment of every agencies equipment was equally problematic.  A
nationwide allocation of compatible equipment seems eminently logical

as
the cleanest solution to the dilema.  Of course, little improved 
following

the later 2001 trade center bombing, and money didn't get ponied up for
replacement equipment for a long time (not until the 2006 democratic
congress identified this as one of their first 100 hrs issues [the
connection being that the 9/11 commission identified this as a lingering
unaddressed problem that public safety communications had yet to be
funded]), but this is essentially the logic behind the 4.9GHz
allocation -- 

and all allocations for public safety since PSWAC.

 Yet another means of communication that won't be around when it's

needed,

 because it'll be down or something.

Why would you say this?  Public Safety takes care of their radio 
equipment

as well as they take care of their firearms and vehicles.  In fact, I've
heard that a patrolman gets docked more $ for losing his 2-way radio than
for losing his gun!  Any failure of a public safety communications radio
network is an automatic inquiry / investigation event.

Both your comments appear to be slaps at public safety communications 
with


Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz

2007-04-25 Thread Rich Comroe
It's ALWAYS been this way.  Back in the 50's when you were taught ideals, rest 
assured it was the same way (but as a child you weren't aware).  Remember that 
telecommunications had little need for radio back then other than as microwave 
backhaul ... which never cut a large geographic area due to its directionality 
by nature.  Radio licenses were handed out to commercial business's at modest 
filing fee because there wasn't perceived to be any large monetary demand.  
This changed only in the early 1980's as the FCC struggled to find ways to 
grant licenses for cellular spectrum, which was the first time in history that 
there had ever been such demand.  Yet it still hadn't been discovered how much 
business's were willing to PAY for licenses until the first round of PCS 
auctions netted the government $2.3B almost a decade later.

But IMO there's been no recent change in government.  We each discover the way 
it works at a particular age, but I've no reason to believe it acted 
differently in times gone by.  Just reflect back on regulations crafted for 
oil, railroad, steel, coal, or whatever the largest corporations of the day 
were 100 years ago.  The only change is that wireless was never the target of 
the largest corporations way, way back when.  Even though it was one-way, 
remember how the corporate interests of the TV broadcasters (Sarnoff) 
influenced the FCC to move the FM broadcast band almost-3/4-of-a-century-ago 
just as a roadblock to an emerging FM broadcast competition?  Imagine getting 
the FCC to put all early FM broadcasters and manufacturers out of business with 
a stroke of the pen!  I think this was all the way back in the 1930s.  Crippled 
the FM broadcast industry for at least 30 years (until the invention of FM 
Stereo in the early 1960s).

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

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


  John,

  Regarding your comment:

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


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

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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz

2007-04-25 Thread Rich Comroe


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz




- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz



John,

Regarding your comment:

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


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


But Jack, this is problem is more than 200 years old in the US. In 
fact,

people with money have been influencing government for... well, as long as
there has been money and governments.


Mark, we're in complete agreement.  I wrote this very same message in my own 
reply to Jack.






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


Our economy has thrived IN SPITE OF GOVERNMENT for as long as our nation 
has

existed.  It has and always be so.   There are many things that could be
done to limit the damage, but few of us ever support those things.


Here's where we disagree.  Wireless policy cannot be anarchistic (my term 
... you always use the terms free market) as you advocate.  For industries 
where what I choose to do doesn't impact your choices, no problem. 
Wireless DOES NOT FIT in this class (many other industries don't fit as 
well, completely unrelated to wireless).  Your FREEDOM impacts MY choices. 
Government policy MUST regulate wireless industries for the public good. 
Study some history of various industries (not restricted to just wireless) 
and you will find that lack of government guidance / or bad government 
guidance (read: lack of vitally needed regulation) hurts everyone.  We've 
had previous threads where we respectfully disagree on this.  You see free 
market as the best for everyone, and I know how painfully untrue this often 
is.  Do you really truly believe that everyone always benefits from your 
having no restriction whatsoever on what you choose to do?  I respect your 
opinions immensely but I just can't help believe that deep down you know 
from your own career experiences that this has never really been true under 
all circumstances.  But then again, a lot of people in Wash/Ore apparently 
seem willing to believe this fantasy.






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

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


No, Jack, this only gaurantees that the famous, the incumbents... these 
will
get elected and re-elected.   All this does is limit the power of those 
NOT

in power to speak to the people.   Every time someone tries to limit this,
it further calcifies the power in place and people already into power.

Money is not the problem.   The problem is that we have allowed goverment 
to

do everything for us, and we don't insist it stop.   Poll this list, and
you'll find a lot of people want the government to take over EVEN MORE 
parts

of our economy than they have already.  

Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz

2007-04-25 Thread Rich Comroe
I've found your posts articulate, intelligent, and often very insightful.  I 
agree with many of things you write.  But I can't help but disagree with 
literally everything you've said here in this post.  I'd spent nearly a 
decade representing a large corporation in public coordination functions 
with the rest of the wireless industry at large, and government.  True, you 
learn to not believe anything anyone ever says on its face, but if you're 
successful in what you do you dig for the true motive of everyone.  You also 
learn that the public good is very often served by concensus, even if it's 
expressed through regulation.  It's unfortunate that much of regulation is 
not an expression of anything but the voice of who has the most money  
influence.  The responsible thing is to play to make it better (spoken as 
one who tried), but that hardly ever equates to burn it all down.  Can you 
really find no redeeming qualities in anything expressed thru your 
government?


Respectfully,
Rich

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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz




- Original Message - 
From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz




Before I start sounding like Mark, I need to state that I believe

government plays an important helpful (even

Ok, now that I stopped snickering...  Rich, we're not that far apart... 
but

the difference between is, is that I'm willing to argue what we all know,
but often just don't really want to address.   That being the obvious
outcomes vs the ideal we want.


vital) role to promote US industries and provide the best services for the

US people.  I just think they're doing a bad job in this regard.  I
fervently believe that regulatory anarchy is the worst thing for us all

collectively when it comes to signals that can travel long distances.

There's no excuse for lack of regulation which can destroy the utility of
our spectrum which can all go the way of CB.  There's a terrible need for

active FCC watch-dogs to weigh-in to counteract the impact of paid

lobbyists.  Of course, the major industries have a voice that's orders of
magnitude louder.  But that's the way it's always been.

That's the nature of government for you.

The nature has certain observable qualities, and I address those here.
That's why I state things like government being lethal.   That's its 
nature,
that's just how things are.   You people keep confusing that with the 
notion

of promoting anarchy, which I am not.As someone once said eternal
vigilance is the price we must pay as a democratic type society to get 
and

keep liberty - and that could be defined as having a reasonably just and
responsible government.   Eternal Vigilance can be defined, when it 
comes

to WISP's, as standing up for or against everything that impacts our
business, our services, or our ability to do either.

It is the very nature of government and the  governed to be adversarial. 
I
know many of you think that's some kind of politics, but it's not 
partisan.

It's just the nature of the beast, as they say.  Anyone who thinks that we
must give up something, does nothing but offer payment for empty air.
Unless we are EVER defensive, eternally vigilant,  we WILL get trod into
oblivion.   That doesn't take bad people, or ANY hostility on the part of
the regulators toward us, that's just the consequences of the motions of 
the

1500 pound gorilla attempting to walk around the anthills.

If we have good enough things to say, and ones that give the regulators 
the
ability to say good things about what they do, then we needed play 'quid 
pro

quo which is just a nice way of saying shady dealings which we all
despise.   Most of them would rather have something good to say and do
something good... It's easier, but until or unless we give them that
ammunition, INTACT, it's not going to happen.




Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Unger

  To: WISPA General List
  Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:17 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz


  John,

  Regarding your comment:

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


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

Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz

2007-04-25 Thread Rich Comroe
A very good  respectable attitude.  I agree with you whole heartedly that 
FCC (and justice dept policy) has badly damaged our own wireless and wired 
telecommunications industries in this country (which for so long led the 
entire planet).  That doesn't make them evil ... it just means they've done 
a bad job at balancing the needs of the country with the politics  
influence that have dominated the last few decades.  I've observed over many 
years that the positions advocated with money  influence from major 
business's are often not in the interests of the country (or even 
themselves!).  Like most things it's a fault of leadership, not of the 
institutions.  We all need to keep our eyes on them as you so appropriately 
described.  Like everything else in politics, if you don't vote you get the 
government you deserve.  The same goes with the institutions that influence 
our industry ... the industry has to participate!  Those that serve wispa 
deserve a lot of credit.  It's tough to participate as a volunteer beyond 
the scope of the work necessary to run your own businesses.  Hell, many of 
the years I worked for Moto it was my paid full-time job to participate in 
whatever industry forum or government committee they saw fit.  It's really 
tough when it's your own time, expense,  motivation.


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz



Rich,

You make a good point. As a child, it was easy for me to understand the 
ideals that I was taught but it was harder for me to see and to understand 
what was really going on behind the scenes - behind the political 
curtain so to speak.


Now, as an adult, it's become painfully obvious to me how intertwined 
politics and business really are. They are so intertwined that they appear 
(to me at least) to be destroying both the financial well-being of our 
country and the moral leadership that we once believed our country 
provided in the world.


I guess I could say that my eyes have been opened. I now try to watch 
the FCC and our government at every level (local, state and federal) to 
try to keep them true to the ideals that I was taught were true and that I 
still believe they should be upholding.


jack


Rich Comroe wrote:
It's ALWAYS been this way.  Back in the 50's when you were taught ideals, 
rest assured it was the same way (but as a child you weren't aware). 
Remember that telecommunications had little need for radio back then 
other than as microwave backhaul ... which never cut a large geographic 
area due to its directionality by nature.  Radio licenses were handed out 
to commercial business's at modest filing fee because there wasn't 
perceived to be any large monetary demand.  This changed only in the 
early 1980's as the FCC struggled to find ways to grant licenses for 
cellular spectrum, which was the first time in history that there had 
ever been such demand.  Yet it still hadn't been discovered how much 
business's were willing to PAY for licenses until the first round of PCS 
auctions netted the government $2.3B almost a decade later.


But IMO there's been no recent change in government.  We each discover 
the way it works at a particular age, but I've no reason to believe it 
acted differently in times gone by.  Just reflect back on regulations 
crafted for oil, railroad, steel, coal, or whatever the largest 
corporations of the day were 100 years ago.  The only change is that 
wireless was never the target of the largest corporations way, way back 
when.  Even though it was one-way, remember how the corporate interests 
of the TV broadcasters (Sarnoff) influenced the FCC to move the FM 
broadcast band almost-3/4-of-a-century-ago just as a roadblock to an 
emerging FM broadcast competition?  Imagine getting the FCC to put all 
early FM broadcasters and manufacturers out of business with a stroke of 
the pen!  I think this was all the way back in the 1930s.  Crippled the 
FM broadcast industry for at least 30 years (until the invention of FM 
Stereo in the early 1960s).


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


Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Unger To: WISPA General

Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz

2007-04-25 Thread Rich Comroe




- Original Message - 
From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz




 Our economy has thrived IN SPITE OF GOVERNMENT for as long as our 
 nation

 has
 existed.  It has and always be so.   There are many things that could 
 be

 done to limit the damage, but few of us ever support those things.

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

industries

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



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


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


Government policy MUST regulate wireless industries for the public good.


Not really.   It has taken upon itself, for better or for worse ( that's 
not

even the point of the argument, so let's not get bogged in it) the task of
regulating radio spectrum.   That doesn't mean it has to regulate the
industry... Just the use of the spectrum for the best outcome it can 
figure

out how to do.

Study some history of various industries (not restricted to just 
wireless)

and you will find that lack of government guidance / or bad government
guidance (read: lack of vitally needed regulation) hurts everyone.  We've


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

had previous threads where we respectfully disagree on this.  You see 
free

market as the best for everyone, and I know how painfully untrue this

often

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

your

yes.  Absolutely.


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

under
all circumstances.  But then again, a lot of people in Wash/Ore 
apparently

seem willing to believe this fantasy.


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





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

central

 banks in countries outside the U.S.

 Now that I've framed the problem (political corruption), I have an
 obligation to do more than just complain. I have an obligation to
 outline the solution. The solution is to take the money out of

politics.

 Allow all candidates to campaign with an small but equal amount of
 public money (our money). Remember, the job of politicians is to write
 the laws that govern our country. By taking the large-corporation 
 money

 out of politics, politicians will be reminded each day who they are
 supposed to be working for... they're supposed to be working for us.

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

this,

 it further calcifies the power in place and people already into power.

 Money is not the problem.   The problem is that we have allowed

goverment

 to
 do everything for us, and we don't insist it stop.   Poll this list, 
 and

 you'll find a lot of people want the government to take over EVEN MORE
 parts
 of our economy than they have already.  Health care being one.   Gee, 
 we

 whine and moan that government is intrenched into everything and plays
 favorites with those who give it money, and then we start talking about
 giving it EVEN MORE control and power.

Government is not the source and stem of all evil.  Thinking in

competitive
free market terms, we have a fairly good government compared to most 
which

are much worse.  That doesn't make it the perfect, and money/power is the
evil.  I agree with Jack on this.  Money/power/influence are the things

that
make government act against the best interests of the country ... it's 
not

government itself that's the source of evil.


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

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

2007-04-21 Thread Rich Comroe
I agree Mark's post was extremely well said, and insightful.  To me, it's like 
Yellowstone wildlife management.  Once it became a national park the park 
management (people) said we need to manage the wildlife.  They did this, then 
10 years later they did that, then 10 years later they did something else, etc. 
 All the while it was painfully obvious that it was unnecessary for people to 
manage natural wildlife.  Yet they continued, each policy meant to repair or 
undo the damage of the previous one.  I immensely enjoy the programs that 
reflect back on 100 years of park management that look a tale of one one 
blunder after another ... everything they seek to fix were problems they 
created.

The underlying truth is that many things like a free marketplace operate 
quite fine when left alone.  Once people (read: government) interferes they 
sometimes cannot help but be disruptive by whatever they do ... because 
intruding was never the right thing to do in the first place.  I think the 
basic need to intrude in the broadband marketplace stems from a long line of 
federal government intrusion into telecommunications 30 years ago, and it's yet 
to do anything for the citizenry of our country that hasn't been harmful (all 
the way back to Judge Green).

But that's as far as I go feeling gov should butt out.  I'm a strong advocate 
that gov should set standards for interoperability for each band for the public 
good of the citizenry of our country.  So I'm not anti-gov, just feel in some 
areas like trying to manage industries they should excuse themselves ... 
forever.  But gov does do many important things for us all, and I believe the 
FCC has an absolutely vital role to perform.  I just wish they would do better 
where I think they bear a responsibility, and abandon meddling where I think 
they shouldn't have ever interfered.

Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Rick Harnish 
  To: 'WISPA General List' 
  Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 10:38 AM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition


  Mark,

  This was one of the best emails you have ever written IMHO. At 3070 words,
  it must have taken you all night to write, but I appreciate the time you put
  into it and your opinions are well stated.  I believe this is a must read
  for anyone wanting to get a real-life picture of our industry and it's
  challenges.  There is definitely room for more radical views to be heard.  

  I'm sure others will disagree or dispute some of the opinions you have
  stated but that's ok.  This will create some great discussion.  

  As a board member of WISPA, it is our duty to reflect and consider all
  opinions of the members of our association.  We need to weigh all opinions
  and guide policy direction as the majority sees fit.  While we may not
  always take your side in some matters, we do so in what we interpret as the
  best course for the future of the industry.  Does that mean we don't listen?
  Heavens no!  This is the great part of group efforts, molding peoples ideas
  into a negotiated platform that is livable by as many of us as possible
  would be our necessary goal.  It is a balancing act sometimes to represent
  the membership while maintaining a respectful front with the FCC and
  legislators who have the power to make the laws and policies which police
  our industry.  WISPA can be radical at times, but we also need to temper our
  views somewhat to maintain a respectful image with those who make the
  decisions.  

  Again, I appreciate your comments!

  Rick Harnish
  President
  OnlyInternet Broadband  Wireless, Inc.
  260-827-2482
  Founding Member of WISPA

  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
  Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 4:14 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Even nationally, the SAME ANSWER applies.   There is no actual need OF ANY
  KIND to know the number.   If 27 percent of the population has broadband
  available, is there some kind of crisis?  What if it's 80%?   what if 

[WISPA] Vonage wins temporary reprieve against signing up new customers

2007-04-13 Thread Rich Comroe
Latest New Vonage news from yesterday:

Vonage CEO resigns, cost-cutting moves planned
contains the interesting quotation:
... on Friday it won a temporary reprieve from a court order prohibiting it 
from signing up new customers ... at least until April 24 when the next 
hearing occurs.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/041207-vonage-ceo-resigns-cost-cutting-moves.html?t51hbcompany=

Which Verizon patents did Vonage violate?
The Verizon patents at issue cover technology for transferring voice calls, 
supporting features such as call waiting, and providing wireless handset 
support for VoIP customers.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/041007-verizon-patents-vonage.html?t51hbcompany=

Rich
--
WISPA Wireless List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

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


[WISPA] WalMart and the Three Great RFID Lies

2007-04-11 Thread Rich Comroe
Saw this in Network World and thought of the recent WalMart RFID thread on 
this list.  Enjoy.

Rich
-

Wal-Mart and the Three Great RFID Lies
by Yankee Ingenuity, Howard Anderson

The Three Great Lies used to be: My wife doesn't understand me; I'm from 
corporate and I'm here to help you; and ... I forget the third. What are the 
Three Great RFID Lies?

The last time I counted, more than 65 venture-backed companies were committed 
to RFID technology.  Assume a $20 million investment in each, and that's $1.3 
billion invested in RFID. Each company submitted a business plan that 
essentially said: RF1D is going to be the next great multibillion dollar market 
(Lie No. 1); every company that sells to Wal Mart will be required to use RFID 
tags (Lie No. 2, though this remains to be seen); and Wal-Mart is strongly 
behind RF1D (Lie No.3).

RFID is a technology in search of a problem. There isn't a single industry 
standard yet, who knows how many vendors will be around in five years, and the 
RFID tags and readers are less than foolproof. The technology is young, and 
investments now could be obsolete or leapfrogged. Consumers see no benefit in 
RFID and perhaps some loss of privacy Retailers feel RFID may discourage theft, 
but its cost effectiveness has not yet been proven.  Where does this leave 
Wal-Mart?

Wal-Mart will sell $350 billion in merchandise this year. Each Wal-Mart 
supercenter sells 120,000 different items, and there are more than 2,200 
supercenters and more than 3,000 stores in all.  For some companies, such as 
Procter  Gamble,Wal-Mart accounts for 15% of their business. It is the 
category leader in clothing, toys and a half dozen other areas, and is the 
largest private employer in the United States and Mexico. Among American 
families, 93% shop at Wal Mart at least once a year and 100 million Americans 
make a trip there weekly Wal-Mart is the monster from Arkansas, and mere mortal 
companies tremble when it makes a directional statement about where its 
technology is moving. Wal Mart convinced its suppliers to migrate to RF1D with 
the promise of great cost savings that they could share.

RFID was supposed to replace bar coding, but putting a bar code on a package 
costs nothing. Putting on an RFID tag costs 15 cents, and then you need all the 
ancillary technology and software. Wal-Mart made its top 600 suppliers 
implement the program with the promise that nothing was going to stop it. The 
plan was to have all of Wal-Mart's 120 distribution centers eventually up and 
running. To date, just five are.

Here's what happens: Wal-Mart hypes the technology It uses the carrot and stick 
with its suppliers: This is in your best interest is the carrot, and Aren't 
we in a wonderful partnership? is the stick. Wal-Mart never expects to 
actually pay for the tags, the software or the development. It convinces its 
suppliers this cost should be borne by them and will make them more profitable. 
The hype leads to investment money coming into the market, which creates an 
oversupply of vendors -- all of whom fight for market share and continually 
drop their prices and delay their profitability.

Remember that great Peanuts cartoon where Lucy holds the football for Charlie 
Brown to kick and then swipes it away as he falls on his rear? And Lucy says, 
See you here next year!

Wal Mart wasn't the first company to play this game -- General Motors was. Many 
years ago, GM was pushing its Manufacturing Automation Protocol on every 
computer vendor, and demanding this was a key decision criterion for future IT 
purchases. This took tons of time and even more money. Everyone was on board -- 
except GM, which wasn't even committed to the protocol at the car making level. 
This was the one level that really counted; it was one or two crazies in the IT 
department who were on the ultimate power trip.

When you're a supplier dealing with Wal Mart, there's going to be a lot of 
blood on the floor -- and it's going to be yours. Suppliers will never 
criticize their biggest customer, but most don't expect to ever see a return on 
their RFID investment and suspect Wal-Mart hasn't achieved its hoped for 
savings.  This doesn't mean suppliers haven't spent millions building out their 
facilities to handle RFID and are still waiting for Wal Mart to expand the 
program and pass along some of these illusionary savings to them.

In the meantime, wanna kick the football, Charlie Brown? I promise I won't pull 
it away this time.

Anderson is the founder of The Yankee Croup and YankeeTek, and a cofounder of 
Battery Ventures. He lectures on technology at the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology and speaks on technology subjects at meetings across the country He 
can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: 

Re: [WISPA] NO new customers for VONAGE

2007-04-06 Thread Rich Comroe
I think the message for the rest of the VoIP industry is:
 You're next 

Maybe true, but I have a different opinion.

The ruling included an explicit list of the algorithms that infringed on 
Verizon (shout out thanks go to Peter for these).  It's clear that you can 
build VoIP service without infringement ... but Vonage didn't ... not because 
it had to intentionally use the Verizon algorithms, but because it didn't know 
any better (because they didn't know enough to check for IPR).  Vonage will be 
infringement free as soon as they re-engineer their service (and open for new 
business) ... and you know they'll be re-engineering at full-steam.  Depending 
on how quickly they got started (presumably they've already been working 
full-steam since the initial infringement lawsuit was filed) it could be up and 
running within months (or less).

Small fish will never be gone after by Verizon, and hopefully the open-source 
project VoIP solutions are IPR infringement free (or will soon be ... having 
been awakened to the implications of IPR by this ruling).

I think the real message for the rest of the VoIP industry is that the big 
players (both manufacturers and operators) religiously protect their IPR, and 
if you want to compete (meaning: grow large) you better pay attention.  
Vonage's crime was complete total ignorance of the law of IPR (which we all 
know is always a very poor legal defense for breaking the law).

Rich

p.s.  On re-reading before hitting SEND I note that I use the IPR acronym 
without definition ... hopefully the readers here know that IPR means 
Intellectual Property Rights (meaning patents  copyrights).
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jack Unger 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 2:01 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] NO new customers for VONAGE


  I think the message for the rest of the VoIP industry is:

   You're next 



  George Rogato wrote:
   Yipes!  this is going to really hurt.
   
   http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070406/ap_on_hi_te/vonage_verizon_suit
   
   I wonder what this means for the rest of the voip industry...

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


  -- 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] ot OE links

2007-03-29 Thread Rich Comroe
Many Microsoft programs use common routines to provide functions (so they don't 
replicate them in each program).  These show up as SVCHOST in the task-manager, 
and perform a variety of functions such as right-click menus, launching 
windows, opening links, etc.  Some 3rd party applications have been known to 
interfere with windows ability to launch SVCHOST routines, causing a variety of 
seemingly unrelated maladies; what you reported being just one.  It ain't 
difficult to figure out if an application is interfering with windows SVCHOST 
operation (and which one) but typically simply uninstalling the interfering 
program returns windows operation to normal.  Had this happen to me, and it was 
as simple as uninstalling a paint program (Micrografix picture publisher 10) 
... but figuring out that this application had a conflict was the hard part.

Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Pete Davis 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:02 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] ot OE links


  There is a reg hack to fix that, but the easiest way I have found is to 
  install or reinstall a browser (thunderbird or opera or whatever). When 
  it finishes, and launches for the first time, it will ask if its the 
  default browser, say yes. You can change back to IE or whatever, but the 
  registry settings that say open http://whatever.whatever; to open in a 
  browser will get rewritten and reset when you do that.

  pd

  Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
   Hi All,
  
   My laptop will no longer go to a link when clicked on via email.  In 
   OE if I click on a link it won't go there unless I copy and paste the 
   link into a browser.
  
   I have a customer with that problem too.  I'll be darned if I can find 
   the setting that got changed to cause it.
  
   Any ideas?
   thanks
   marlon
  

  -- 
  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] IPTV

2007-03-27 Thread Rich Comroe
Yeah, that's it!

Naw it's not.  I shouldn't be embarassed to tell the truth.  The 48 display is 
the lowest tech thing in the livingroom.  It's an almost 10yr old Toshiba 
rear-projection TV, and the PC simply uses a TV out.  So when Sam Tetherow says 
the stuff that uses 1/10th of the bandwidth are not made to be displayed on a 
42 HD monitor, he's correct ... but Slingbox, LocationFree, and BeyondTV 
compressed recordings look just fine to me (about the same as analog cable 
looked).

Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: George Rogato 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:14 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV


  It wouldn't happen to be this one:

  
http://www.samsung.com/Products/ProAV/Plasmas/PPM50M5HBXXAA.asp?page=Specifications

  I was thinking of buying this last year. Held off looking for lower 
  pricing, so I can buy 2.

  George

  Rich Comroe wrote:
   I myself don't want to watch a movie on my pc monitor. I like the 
   comfort of a big picture in my easy chair. When I can do that with 
   internet tv, it will be a lot more popular.
   
   Yeah, but ... 
   My living room big picture that I watch from my easy chair happens to be my 
PC video server, not a TV.  It's been over a year since I used a TV (which I 
define as a display box with a TV tuner built in).  The living room PC has a 
couple TV tuner cards, Internet connection, and drives a big 48 display. Watch 
cable, programs previously recorded to disk (BeyondTV software is great with a 
half-terabyte drives), or Internet content.  There's never even been a keyboard 
on this machine.  If I wanna navigate there's a wireless mouse that sits on the 
hassock next to the tuner card remote controls.  If I really need to type, I 
have to use a laptop with VNC.  Essentially a TIVO on steroids.  It's geek 
heaven!
   
   Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to
   forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one 
   stream.
   
   Yeah, but ...
   Location Free, Slingbox, etc., do quite nicely on much much less BW.  Is 
IPTV really that much of a hog that it needs 1.25Mbps?  How could it possibly 
compete against products out there already that use only a tenth of this BW?
   
   Rich
 - Original Message - 
 From: George Rogato 
 To: WISPA General List 
 Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 9:28 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV
   
   
 Nice easy reading here.
   
 http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264
   
 Looks like the trend is towards video on demand.
   
 Here's a link:
   
 http://www.tv-links.co.uk/index.do/4
   
 We have a long way to go before this stuff is mainstream for sure. But 
 there is a convergence happening.
 I myself don't want to watch a movie on my pc monitor. I like the 
 comfort of a big picture in my easy chair. When I can do that with 
 internet tv, it will be a lot more popular.
   
   
   
   
   
 Travis Johnson wrote:
  I can say that I have always been a gadget freak. I almost always have 
  the newest toys (cell phones, laptops, two-way radios, etc.) and I 
  usually play with them for a few months, and then put them on ebay. I 
am 
  a technology freak. I love new things (like our newest toy, an 18ghz 
  Dragonwave AirPair100). Call me what you will, but I like new 
technology.
  
  However, I can also tell you that I have a regular POTS line at home 
  (pay $35/mo for all features like vmail, call waiting, etc.) and I also 
  have DISH network at home. I would never consider using an internet 
  connection for TV... EVER. VoIP works for some people (I can always 
tell 
  when I'm talking to someone on a VoIP phone), but I can never see using 
  my internet connection for TV... here are a few reasons:
  
  (1) The internet is very unstable. When people want to watch TV, they 
  don't want excuses on why it's not working. Imagine the calls you would 
  get when a person's internet, telephone and TV are all down because one 
  of their PC's is infected with the latest virus or spyware.
  
  (2) I like having things seperate. Seperate bills is a slight issue, 
but 
  with automatic billing now, it all comes out of the checking account 
  automatically anyway.
  
  (3) I'm not tied to a single provider. If I want to switch my phone 
  service or TV service to something different, I can.
  
  (4) With the free DVR's and 4 rooms hooked up for free from DISH and 
  only $29.99 per month for 60+ channels, who is going to compete with 
  that? How can anyone provide a sustained 4-6Mbps for up to 4 TV's to 
  _every_ subscriber across their network (including the cableco or 
  telco's). Even in a small town (say 5,000 population), if the cable 
  company had 500 customers, that would be up to 1Gbps of bandwidth 
needed 
  (50% utilization of the 500 subs

Re: [WISPA] Vonage

2007-03-26 Thread Rich Comroe
What patents did Vonage infringe upon.  What does Verizon have a patter on 
concerning voip ...

Many thanks to Peter, who supplied all the specifics of the patents in 
question.  Interesting reading.

 ... and how does that effect the future?

I read the public announcement from Vonage issued the same day as the 
injunction.  Basically, it sounds like they have no intention of obeying the 
court order.  They state their intention to continue service until they get a 
chance to request a stay of the injunction (in about 2 weeks), and further that 
they have no intention of halting service as required by the injunction should 
their request for a stay be denied (which they say they'd then appeal).  Stay 
tuned for that next hearing in 2 weeks.

Vonage press release:
Vonage Enjoined; Company Expresses Confidence in Obtaining Stay and in Appeal 
and Ability to Deliver Uninterrupted Service to Customers

HOLMDEL, N.J., March 23, 2007 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ -- 
The U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va. today issued an order enjoining 
Vonage from using certain VoIP technology named in its patent litigation with 
Verizon. The order is not immediately effective, however, and Vonage is 
confident its customers will see no change in their phone service. 

The court announced its intent to hear stay argument in two weeks' time. At 
that time, the court intends to render a decision regarding the stay, as well 
as making the injunction effective. If the court denies the stay, Vonage will 
seek a stay through appeal from the Federal Court of Appeals. Vonage is 
confident it will be able to obtain a stay through appeal. 

We are confident Vonage customers will not experience service interruptions or 
other changes as a result of this litigation, said Mike Snyder, Vonage's chief 
executive officer. 

The company has drafted its notice of appeal of the March 8 jury verdict and 
will file that notice at the appropriate juncture in the court proceedings. 

Our fight is far from over, Snyder said. We remain confident that Vonage has 
not infringed on any of Verizon's patents - a position we will continue 
vigorously contending in federal appeals court - and that Vonage will 
ultimately prevail in this case. 

Snyder continued, Despite this obvious attempt by Verizon to cripple Vonage, 
the litigation will not stop Vonage from continuing to provide quality VoIP 
service to our millions of customers. 

Our appeal centers on erroneous patent claim construction, and we remain 
confident that Vonage has not infringed on any of Verizon's patents - a 
position we will continue to vigorously assert in federal appeals court, said 
Sharon O'Leary, Vonage's executive vice president, chief legal officer and 
secretary. Vonage relied on open-standard, off-the-shelf technology when 
developing its service. In fact, evidence introduced in court failed to prove 
that Vonage relied on Verizon's VoIP technology, and instead showed that in 
2003 Verizon began exploring ways to copy Vonage's technology, she added. 

The company is focused on growing its business by investing in the rollout of 
new technology and features, and continuing to grow its customer base. Vonage's 
accomplishments continue to validate its business model and strategy. The 
company has achieved 19 consecutive quarters of double-digit revenue growth, 
doubled revenues to $607 million in 2006 alone, and added nearly 1 million net 
subscriber lines last year. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: George Rogato 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 5:50 PM
  Subject: [WISPA] Vonage


  What patents did Vonage infringe upon.
  What does Verizon have a patter on concerning voip and how does that 
  effect the future?

  -- 
  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] IPTV

2007-03-26 Thread Rich Comroe
I myself don't want to watch a movie on my pc monitor. I like the 
comfort of a big picture in my easy chair. When I can do that with 
internet tv, it will be a lot more popular.

Yeah, but ... 
My living room big picture that I watch from my easy chair happens to be my PC 
video server, not a TV.  It's been over a year since I used a TV (which I 
define as a display box with a TV tuner built in).  The living room PC has a 
couple TV tuner cards, Internet connection, and drives a big 48 display. Watch 
cable, programs previously recorded to disk (BeyondTV software is great with a 
half-terabyte drives), or Internet content.  There's never even been a keyboard 
on this machine.  If I wanna navigate there's a wireless mouse that sits on the 
hassock next to the tuner card remote controls.  If I really need to type, I 
have to use a laptop with VNC.  Essentially a TIVO on steroids.  It's geek 
heaven!

 Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to
 forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one 
 stream.

Yeah, but ...
Location Free, Slingbox, etc., do quite nicely on much much less BW.  Is IPTV 
really that much of a hog that it needs 1.25Mbps?  How could it possibly 
compete against products out there already that use only a tenth of this BW?

Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: George Rogato 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 9:28 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV


  Nice easy reading here.

  http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264

  Looks like the trend is towards video on demand.

  Here's a link:

  http://www.tv-links.co.uk/index.do/4

  We have a long way to go before this stuff is mainstream for sure. But 
  there is a convergence happening.
  I myself don't want to watch a movie on my pc monitor. I like the 
  comfort of a big picture in my easy chair. When I can do that with 
  internet tv, it will be a lot more popular.





  Travis Johnson wrote:
   I can say that I have always been a gadget freak. I almost always have 
   the newest toys (cell phones, laptops, two-way radios, etc.) and I 
   usually play with them for a few months, and then put them on ebay. I am 
   a technology freak. I love new things (like our newest toy, an 18ghz 
   Dragonwave AirPair100). Call me what you will, but I like new technology.
   
   However, I can also tell you that I have a regular POTS line at home 
   (pay $35/mo for all features like vmail, call waiting, etc.) and I also 
   have DISH network at home. I would never consider using an internet 
   connection for TV... EVER. VoIP works for some people (I can always tell 
   when I'm talking to someone on a VoIP phone), but I can never see using 
   my internet connection for TV... here are a few reasons:
   
   (1) The internet is very unstable. When people want to watch TV, they 
   don't want excuses on why it's not working. Imagine the calls you would 
   get when a person's internet, telephone and TV are all down because one 
   of their PC's is infected with the latest virus or spyware.
   
   (2) I like having things seperate. Seperate bills is a slight issue, but 
   with automatic billing now, it all comes out of the checking account 
   automatically anyway.
   
   (3) I'm not tied to a single provider. If I want to switch my phone 
   service or TV service to something different, I can.
   
   (4) With the free DVR's and 4 rooms hooked up for free from DISH and 
   only $29.99 per month for 60+ channels, who is going to compete with 
   that? How can anyone provide a sustained 4-6Mbps for up to 4 TV's to 
   _every_ subscriber across their network (including the cableco or 
   telco's). Even in a small town (say 5,000 population), if the cable 
   company had 500 customers, that would be up to 1Gbps of bandwidth needed 
   (50% utilization of the 500 subs). There is nobody that can support that 
   right now... or even 3-5 years from now.
   
   Before everyone gets too excited about IPTV, we need to look at reality. 
   Sure companies like Verizon are doing fiber to the house... we will 
   never compete with that... but why try? We will never dominate our 
   region... instead, we are happy to pick up the customers that are 
   unhappy with the telco or cableco or other wireless provider and want 
   internet that just works. That's what we do. Internet. That works.
   
   Travis
   Microserv
   
   Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
   sigh
  
   having no viable options vs. having one's head buried in the sand are 
   two totally different things.
  
   Boy I'm getting tired of being insulted for having a successful business!
   marlon
  
   - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
   Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:08 PM
   Subject: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me.
  
  
   All,
  
   Below is Ken's latest Blog post, still a work in  progress, since 
   George brought it up he 

Re: [WISPA] Vonage

2007-03-23 Thread Rich Comroe
I didn't find anything that listed the patents in question.  Most were only 
business articles, but one article did summarized the patent topics.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20060619-1055-vonage-verizonsuit.html

Verizon charged that Vonage is infringing on at least seven of its patents 
regarding Internet phone service, a technology known as voice over Internet 
protocol, or VoIP. The patents include inventions related to gateway interfaces 
between a packet-switched and circuit-switched network, billing and fraud 
detection, call services such as call forwarding and voicemail and methods 
related to Wi-Fi handset use in a VoIP network, the lawsuit said.

BTW - cursory search at http://www.uspto.gov/ lists Verizon as receiving 57 
issued patents in total since 2001.  It's not a huge number if you were 
inclined to search to see what they got granted that matched the topics listed 
in the article above.  All issued patents are public record and can be 
downloaded from uspto.  The trick is narrowing down the list (or finding the 
issued numbers for the patents in question).  Does anyone know where to find 
the court actions?  That would surely list the patent numbers at issue.

Rich

  - Original Message - 
  From: George Rogato 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 5:50 PM
  Subject: [WISPA] Vonage


  What patents did Vonage infringe upon.
  What does Verizon have a patter on concerning voip and how does that 
  effect the future?

  -- 
  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] Vonage

2007-03-23 Thread Rich Comroe
Outstanding find!  I checked out the summary you posted on your site.  Equipped 
with patent numbers I know how to access them from uspto well enough ... and 
they're free (have almost 40 issued under my name).  I can fully understand how 
a company can independently develop and use an algorithm that another company 
has patented (the finding that the infringement was not willful).  However, 
I've been in the industry long enough to know that you got'ta check before 
you ship a product if you intend to compete with big fish that take IPR 
seriously.  Only a newbie (completely unfamiliar with the concept of IPR) could 
make such an eggregious error (which should indicate as well as anything that 
Vonage is, in fact, newbie).

Never used pacer.  Looked it up (http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/) and it looks 
interesting.

I'd love to read the verdict just for interests sake.  Do you need a separate 
email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] as your post reads?

Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Peter R. 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 9:48 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vonage


  I tracked down the patents and the verdict. I had to dig through PACER 
  and pay about $4 to get it (you pay for every page that you query on 
  PACER. To register you have to give a valid credit card).

  Details here:  
  http://radinfo.blogspot.com/2007/03/case-106-cv-00682-cmh-brp.html

  If you want a copy of the verdict, email me your name and contact info 
  and I'll send you the 28 pages of techno-babble as opined by U.S. 
  District Court Judge Claude Hilton.

  Regards,

  Peter Radizeski
  RAD-INFO, Inc.  - see Info is in the name :)


  Rich Comroe wrote:

  I didn't find anything that listed the patents in question.  Most were only 
business articles, but one article did summarized the patent topics.
  
  
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20060619-1055-vonage-verizonsuit.html
  
  Verizon charged that Vonage is infringing on at least seven of its patents 
regarding Internet phone service, a technology known as voice over Internet 
protocol, or VoIP. The patents include inventions related to gateway interfaces 
between a packet-switched and circuit-switched network, billing and fraud 
detection, call services such as call forwarding and voicemail and methods 
related to Wi-Fi handset use in a VoIP network, the lawsuit said.
  
  BTW - cursory search at http://www.uspto.gov/ lists Verizon as receiving 
57 issued patents in total since 2001.  It's not a huge number if you were 
inclined to search to see what they got granted that matched the topics listed 
in the article above.  All issued patents are public record and can be 
downloaded from uspto.  The trick is narrowing down the list (or finding the 
issued numbers for the patents in question).  Does anyone know where to find 
the court actions?  That would surely list the patent numbers at issue.
  
  Rich
  
- Original Message - 
From: George Rogato 
To: WISPA General List 
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 5:50 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Vonage
  
  
What patents did Vonage infringe upon.
What does Verizon have a patter on concerning voip and how does that 
effect the future?
  
-- 
  
  -- 
  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] Using DECT phones to avoid interference issues.

2007-03-22 Thread Rich Comroe
I haven't seen but one DECT phone here and it was very basic, but I expect
that the technology will quickly be expanded to products like the multi
handset systems, etc that are getting popular from Uniden and all the
others.

There's a reason you haven't seen these products here.  I began searching for 
why the last time a thread discussed the 1.9GHz UL band surfaced on this list.  
I doubt you'll ever see much product ever emerge for this band in the United 
States.  There's a reason for this too ...


I've heard some discussion on this list regarding how the FCC gave the 
industry UL spectrum and they didn't use it.  With such a connection, wisps 
must understand why this band has been underutilized here (as well as judging 
the chances of new products emerging).

Years ago the FCC took this band away from Pt-Pt microwave users.  They 
authorized a group called UTAM to pay what was necessary to move these 
microwave users to clear the band.  Apparently UTAM spent whatever it took 
since it wasn't there money.  Manufacturers wanting to field UL product had to 
pay UTAM what were known as clearing fees.  Check out 
http://www.utam.org/ClearingFees.html.  Prior to April 1 2005 the clearing fees 
were enough to dissuade any manufacturer from building UL product for the 
United States!  IMHO the UTAM fees doubled the cost of producing UL product.  
Since April 1 2005 the fees drop to a mere 50 cents per radio, but a 
manufacturer must still pay UTAM $50,000 up front.  With the lack of products, 
UTAM has amassed a huge debt.

The FCC groundrules for clearing the Pt-Pt users from the band were more than 
enough to insure that this UL band would never be effectively utilized in the 
United States.

Just my opinion,
Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Ralph 
  To: 'WISPA General List' 
  Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 11:45 AM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] Using DECT phones to avoid interference issues.


  I deployed a DECT (Digital European Cordless Telecommunications) system with
  450 handsets several years ago.

  The phones were single line units made by Phillips.  They system worked OK,
  but the features were very lacking.  The frequency range was 1880-1900 MHz
  This deployment was in Paris, France and was connected behind a PBX. There
  were about 21 base stations, each one capable of supporting many
  conversations.

  The DECT system is interesting because it is the standard in Europe and
  people's home handsets could be registered on this system. All I had to do
  was enter the code # into the management system.  We were afraid that the
  handsets might begin disappearing due to the interoperability, but these
  handsets were so cheesy that the home models were much better.

  The DECT system did handoff calls as the users walked between base stations,
  which was pretty cool.

  A year or so aqo, DECT was authorized here in the US, on slightly different
  frequencies: 1920-1930 MHz. There was not any general hoopla at all around
  this introduction.

  DECT isn't GSM, but the two are made to be very compatible and in Europe,
  there are dual mode DECT/GSM phones.  These systems, which are sometimes
  used in installations like mine, allow the user to switch over to a more
  cost-effective DECT connection when in range, and the GSM signaling is
  passed over to the DECT system, but in DECT format.

  I haven't seen but one DECT phone here and it was very basic, but I expect
  that the technology will quickly be expanded to products like the multi
  handset systems, etc that are getting popular from Uniden and all the
  others.

  It should eliminate all WISP interference for sure!

  Ralph






  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
  Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 9:54 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: [WISPA] Using DECT phones to avoid interference issues.

  All,

  I am sure some of you have already thought of this but I would suggest a 
  great alternative to avoid interference with the most common frequencies 
  used to deploy wireless networks would be to use DECT cordless phones in 
  the house. They use the 1.9Ghz frequency and are relatively inexpensive. 
  We use a DECT phone system here with all the features we could ever ask 
  for and we got them for a song after the rebate.

  Just a thought.

  Regards,
  Dawn DiPietro
  -- 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

  -- 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Using DECT phones to avoid interference issues.

2007-03-22 Thread Rich Comroe
Did you look at the UTAM URL?  The fee until recently was $20 per 
device  A market killer if I've ever seen one, especially when the 
manufacturing cost of a simple home phone is in that range!  We'll see if this 
changes now that the UTAM prices have gone down.  My thoughts is that the 
window of opportunity has long passed (there's no up front fee to continue 
making products only for the 900, 2.4,  5GHz UL bands that we wished they'd 
stop using).  What exactly is a manufacturer's incentive to switch to 1.9GHz 
where there's a stiff UTAM fee?

I used to work for a very, very, very large US manufacturer, and all UL 
business phone development in 1.9GHz have long ago (years ago) been permenantly 
cancelled to my best knowledge.

Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: John Scrivner 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:31 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Using DECT phones to avoid interference issues.


  $50K up front and 50 cents a device to control an entire band in the US 
  sounds like a pretty cheap deal to me. I am surprised nobody jumped on 
  that. I do not see that as too much to pay and I am very surprised this 
  did not take off. I hate it when opportunity is right in front of my 
  face and I am too blind to see it!
  Scriv


  Rich Comroe wrote:

  I haven't seen but one DECT phone here and it was very basic, but I expect
  that the technology will quickly be expanded to products like the multi
  handset systems, etc that are getting popular from Uniden and all the
  others.
  
  
  
  There's a reason you haven't seen these products here.  I began searching 
for why the last time a thread discussed the 1.9GHz UL band surfaced on this 
list.  I doubt you'll ever see much product ever emerge for this band in the 
United States.  There's a reason for this too ...
  
  
  I've heard some discussion on this list regarding how the FCC gave the 
industry UL spectrum and they didn't use it.  With such a connection, wisps 
must understand why this band has been underutilized here (as well as judging 
the chances of new products emerging).
  
  Years ago the FCC took this band away from Pt-Pt microwave users.  They 
authorized a group called UTAM to pay what was necessary to move these 
microwave users to clear the band.  Apparently UTAM spent whatever it took 
since it wasn't there money.  Manufacturers wanting to field UL product had to 
pay UTAM what were known as clearing fees.  Check out 
http://www.utam.org/ClearingFees.html.  Prior to April 1 2005 the clearing fees 
were enough to dissuade any manufacturer from building UL product for the 
United States!  IMHO the UTAM fees doubled the cost of producing UL product.  
Since April 1 2005 the fees drop to a mere 50 cents per radio, but a 
manufacturer must still pay UTAM $50,000 up front.  With the lack of products, 
UTAM has amassed a huge debt.
  
  The FCC groundrules for clearing the Pt-Pt users from the band were more 
than enough to insure that this UL band would never be effectively utilized in 
the United States.
  
  Just my opinion,
  Rich
- Original Message - 
From: Ralph 
To: 'WISPA General List' 
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 11:45 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Using DECT phones to avoid interference issues.
  
  
I deployed a DECT (Digital European Cordless Telecommunications) system 
with
450 handsets several years ago.
  
The phones were single line units made by Phillips.  They system worked OK,
but the features were very lacking.  The frequency range was 1880-1900 MHz
This deployment was in Paris, France and was connected behind a PBX. There
were about 21 base stations, each one capable of supporting many
conversations.
  
The DECT system is interesting because it is the standard in Europe and
people's home handsets could be registered on this system. All I had to do
was enter the code # into the management system.  We were afraid that the
handsets might begin disappearing due to the interoperability, but these
handsets were so cheesy that the home models were much better.
  
The DECT system did handoff calls as the users walked between base 
stations,
which was pretty cool.
  
A year or so aqo, DECT was authorized here in the US, on slightly different
frequencies: 1920-1930 MHz. There was not any general hoopla at all around
this introduction.
  
DECT isn't GSM, but the two are made to be very compatible and in Europe,
there are dual mode DECT/GSM phones.  These systems, which are sometimes
used in installations like mine, allow the user to switch over to a more
cost-effective DECT connection when in range, and the GSM signaling is
passed over to the DECT system, but in DECT format.
  
I haven't seen but one DECT phone here and it was very basic, but I expect
that the technology will quickly be expanded to products like the multi
handset systems, etc that are getting

Re: [WISPA] Using DECT phones to avoid interference issues.

2007-03-22 Thread Rich Comroe
Check out www.utam.org.  They really do a fairly good job of describing why 
they were created, what they did, and what companies desiring to use the 
cleared spectrum must do (pay).  Whenever the topic of trying to understand the 
1.9GHz spectrum that the FCC allocated for UL use, this is an important piece 
of the puzzle.  It's simply not as simple as the FCC allocated spectrum for UL 
at 1.9GHz but nobody wanted to use it.

I don't have a link for UPCS usage rules.  I asked sources I trust (that worked 
on, but later abandoned UPCS product development).  They tell me the usage 
rules are a minimal must listen before talking play-nice.  That doesn't seem 
overly restrictive to me.

  - Original Message - 
  From: John Scrivner 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 1:35 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Using DECT phones to avoid interference issues.


  Do you have a link to the rules governing how this spectrum can be used, 
  how it is licensed, who you have to pay what to use it, etc.? I would 
  like to research this in more detail. Is this opportunity still 
  available or is this spectrum now gone elsewhere? Is this what DECT is 
  using? Did they pay the fees? I am trying to understand all the issues 
  being discussed here and feel I am missing important facts.
  Thank you,
  Scriv



  Rich Comroe wrote:

  Did you look at the UTAM URL?  The fee until recently was $20 per 
device  A market killer if I've ever seen one, especially when the 
manufacturing cost of a simple home phone is in that range!  We'll see if this 
changes now that the UTAM prices have gone down.  My thoughts is that the 
window of opportunity has long passed (there's no up front fee to continue 
making products only for the 900, 2.4,  5GHz UL bands that we wished they'd 
stop using).  What exactly is a manufacturer's incentive to switch to 1.9GHz 
where there's a stiff UTAM fee?
  
  I used to work for a very, very, very large US manufacturer, and all UL 
business phone development in 1.9GHz have long ago (years ago) been permenantly 
cancelled to my best knowledge.
  
  Rich
- Original Message - 
From: John Scrivner 
To: WISPA General List 
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Using DECT phones to avoid interference issues.
  
  
$50K up front and 50 cents a device to control an entire band in the US 
sounds like a pretty cheap deal to me. I am surprised nobody jumped on 
that. I do not see that as too much to pay and I am very surprised this 
did not take off. I hate it when opportunity is right in front of my 
face and I am too blind to see it!
Scriv
  
  
Rich Comroe wrote:
  
I haven't seen but one DECT phone here and it was very basic, but I 
expect
that the technology will quickly be expanded to products like the multi
handset systems, etc that are getting popular from Uniden and all the
others.



There's a reason you haven't seen these products here.  I began searching 
for why the last time a thread discussed the 1.9GHz UL band surfaced on this 
list.  I doubt you'll ever see much product ever emerge for this band in the 
United States.  There's a reason for this too ...


I've heard some discussion on this list regarding how the FCC gave the 
industry UL spectrum and they didn't use it.  With such a connection, wisps 
must understand why this band has been underutilized here (as well as judging 
the chances of new products emerging).

Years ago the FCC took this band away from Pt-Pt microwave users.  They 
authorized a group called UTAM to pay what was necessary to move these 
microwave users to clear the band.  Apparently UTAM spent whatever it took 
since it wasn't there money.  Manufacturers wanting to field UL product had to 
pay UTAM what were known as clearing fees.  Check out 
http://www.utam.org/ClearingFees.html.  Prior to April 1 2005 the clearing fees 
were enough to dissuade any manufacturer from building UL product for the 
United States!  IMHO the UTAM fees doubled the cost of producing UL product.  
Since April 1 2005 the fees drop to a mere 50 cents per radio, but a 
manufacturer must still pay UTAM $50,000 up front.  With the lack of products, 
UTAM has amassed a huge debt.

The FCC groundrules for clearing the Pt-Pt users from the band were more 
than enough to insure that this UL band would never be effectively utilized in 
the United States.

Just my opinion,
Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Ralph 
  To: 'WISPA General List' 
  Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 11:45 AM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] Using DECT phones to avoid interference issues.


  I deployed a DECT (Digital European Cordless Telecommunications) system 
with
  450 handsets several years ago.

  The phones were single line units made by Phillips.  They system worked 
OK,
  but the features were

Re: [WISPA] tower climbing

2007-03-11 Thread Rich Comroe
I just keep looking at that picture as if there's something I'm not getting.  I 
can see pegs going down the left leg  backmost leg below you, and pegs going 
up the right leg above you.  What seems wierd is that the parallel braces below 
you and above you do not look parallel to each other right where you are 
crossing.  Am I seeing things?

Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Bob Moldashel 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 12:45 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower climbing


  Looks like someone was not paying attention when they installed it.  You 
  just gotta get balls of steel and slide over.  Down one cross member and 
  up another. We do it all the time.

  BTW:   Be careful...  :-)

  -B-





  Travis Johnson wrote:

   Hi,
  
   I am looking for some advice on the proper climbing technique for a 
   new tower we just installed on. Over the past 10 years, I have climbed 
   hundreds of towers including free standing, guyed, 40ft to 120ft 
   without any problems or fears. However this new tower is much more 
   difficult. I believe it's a Rohn 200ft free standing tower with 3 
   legs. The issue is there are only foot pegs on one leg up to the 80ft 
   level... then the pegs start on another leg and go up from 80ft to the 
   top. Getting from one leg to another at the 80ft level is the 
   challenge. As you can see from the picture, the gap from the top brace 
   to the bottom brace is almost 10feet in the center (I am 6'1).
  
   http://www.ida.net/users/tlj/teton.JPG
  
   Anyone have any suggestions on a better way to accomplish the leg to 
   leg movements across the braces?
  
   Thanks,
  
   Travis
   Microserv


  -- 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...

2007-03-10 Thread Rich Comroe
Impressive list of QA.  Not an issue, but I think the Questioner was asking 
about a different topic than the answerer was thinking of on one question.

I added the Q  A to make it clear:
Q  Are there any known problems with over-polling an AP with SNMP?
A  We do not use polling. In our view it is less efficient than our 
implementation.

I believe the questioner was thinking about a recent thread regarding Canopy 
where a couple wisps surprising observations were being discussed relative to 
the product's recent major OS replacement release by Motorola (Release 8).  In 
the thread someone observed that his network traffic appeared to slow down 
when his network management application began polling radios by SNMP.  
Continuous ping window times climbed in curious coincidence with network 
manager performance polling.  That's why from the langugage (and mention of 
SNMP) I don't think he was referring to polling as a means of bandwidth 
allocation between APs  SMs.  Changing OS (and consequently stacks) is a 
significant change.  There was a previous list of Canopy problems attributable 
to the OS communications stacks that could not be addressed because the license 
for the stacks did not provide source to the Canopy developers.  Ultimately a 
change to a different OS  license (where all communications stacks were 
provided with source) was needed so that the developers had the means to work 
on problems that had been long unaddressed.  Motorola beta tested this Release 
8 longer than typical because of the major impact such a change could 
potentially create.  However, it was eventually released (very recently), and 
some strange stack behaviors have begun to be noticed.

If I'm interpreting correctly this is a very different question, indeed.  It 
likely has to do with how APs and BH units prioritize responding to management 
communications over customer traffic.  It might even involve issue with the 
number of threads the OS can support.  The questioner is simply wondering if 
others have noticed known problems with SNMP polling of APs.  Canopy may have 
some issue, which could be significant to a wisp if he's become reliant upon 
network performance monitoring (which is a good thing IMO).

Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Marlon K. Schafer 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 11:01 AM
  Subject: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...


  I found this thread interesting.

  Enjoy,
  marlon

  - Original Message - 
  From: Patrick Leary 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 5:51 PM
  Subject: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...


  So a gent on the P15 Moto list asked a huge number of questions about Canopy. 
I thought it would be very interesting to attempt to answer them from a VL 
perspective. Since it took a ton of time, I wanted to get some use out them. 
Excellent questions actually. Pretty darned thorough.

   

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

Are modifications to the APs FCC legal?

No, but we numerous 3rd party sectors sectors certified that may e used. 
Our sectors range from 60, 90, and 120 degrees, plus omni choices (God forbid!)

How wide are the 5.7 AP channels, is this adjustable?  What would a SA
show the channel width to be?

Yes, 10 or 20 MHz wide. You can also change on the fly and all CPE will 
adjust automatically.

What is the real-world distance achieved in a LOS situation without
reflector, with?

The CPE with VL comes with an integrated antenna which enables on the VL to 
reach about 7 miles LOS at full capacity (32mbps net ftp), 16mbps at 5 miles, 
29mbps at 2 miles and 32mbps at 1 mile. The answer BTW to your Canopy question 
can be found on their doc CNPY-ADV-SUBMODFCT brochure produced in 2006. On that 
doc it says the range of the 5.7 w/o reflector is 14mbps to 1 mile and 7mbps to 
2 miles. Beyond that you must have a reflector. With the reflect you get 14mbps 
to 5 miles and 7mbps to 10 miles.

Are there any tools or utilities that Motorola or other offers to assist
in the network development of Canopy products?

There are things like link calculators, channel plan docs, and plenty of 
opportunity for direct consultation.

Can two SMs on the same AP talk to each other without special routing?

In VL it could be enabled via the many VLAN capabilities, which include 
QinQ VLAN support, but VL intentionally does not allow this out of the box (it 
is something the operator, i.e. you, should have control over.)

Explain how the Advantage 14MB/s (or 20MB/s) works, how is that
allocated, how true are those figures?  Is the allocation dynamic?  Can
you mix breeds of SM on the AP?

VL uses OFDM, which gives it some NLOS abilities (not so much with trees, 
but it also helps a bit there). The OFDM we uses adaptive modulates 

Re: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history....

2007-03-03 Thread Rich Comroe
Sort of off topic, to be sure, but, exactly what does having a universal 
standard do for us? 

Aren't all the toilet paper rolls the same width for your roller?  Donn't all 
the toilets mount in the same size base fitting?  :-)

How long... or, should I say, what, is even the remote possibility, that 
Europe will switch should we invent something far better than GSM?  Size 
creates inertia.  Inertia and mass create friction and friction resists 
movement.  

Oh, contrair.  With the size of the worldwide GSM there is lots of momentum 
behind its evolution.  GPRS happened and was available in the same time-frame 
as US based 21/2G solutions.  Next, GSM is migrating to WCDMA (the standard 
version of the EVDO's we're seeing being deployed around here).

But what's the chances of 
getting every nation of the EU to move, other than minor evolutionary 
movements with full backward compatibiilty, for some time to come?

WCDMA is hardly a minor evolutionary movement.  GSM is essentially switching 
from a 300KHz or so TDMA to a 5MHz CDMA (as I said, it looks very much like the 
EVDO's you see deployed around here).  Every nation in the EU, and for that 
part, most every other nation on the planet that adopted GSM will move.  They 
enjoy the benefits of price that only come from the power of volume 
manufacturing far beyond any non-standard US specific technology.

Ahh, but you see chaos and disorder.  I see opportunity knocking and 
excitement.

Yes, very exciting indeed.  I worked for a US manufacturer that slid from #1 in 
world sales down to perhaps #3 in handsets (and off the chart in infastructure) 
in that very market.  All the dominant world manufacturers in cellular today 
are foreign and riding the GSM world standard.  We all know the US has 
completely lost numerous high technology markets forever.  We lost computer 
memories, automobiles, TVs, VCRs, and cellular (among many others).  Behind 
each lost market is a unique story.  In the case of cellular, the fragmentation 
of the US standards for cellular technology is a direct cause of losing an 
entire US market.  We can all thank the FCC, and a pair of US manufacturers for 
that.

We HAD a standard, a nice, comfy, understood, universal standard for phone 
service... copper.  A user-friendly monopoly phone company that had nice 
operators and everyone's phone worked like everyone else's.   

And then the justice department stepped in (circa 1975).  Then there were 3 
distinct long distance carriers building essentially completely redunant 
competing networks, where each could (by the law of averages) reap only a third 
of the customer base of  single unified network.  Long before wireless, the 
United States quickly slipped from #1 to behind all other advanced countries 
which maintained a unified PTT (Postal Telephone  Telegraph ... typically 
government operated in most countries).  Again, we quickly slipped from 
leadership to almost last place among advanced countries in ISDN and other 
advanced services ... back when ISDN would have still been fast compared to 
alternatives.  Essentially no single company could be profitable enough in a 
fragmented market to keep the US on the front edge.

It's always interesting...

Hey, I love this ... it's been near and dear to my heart through about 30 yrs 
in the industry (I spent almost 10 yrs of it in standards group participation). 
 I don't know how others on the list think of the topic.  If we're boring 
others maybe we should continue any follow-up off-line.

cheers,
Rich


  - Original Message - 
  From: wispa 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 1:43 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history


  On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 17:31:23 -0600, Rich Comroe wrote
   We don't have to agree.  I certainly respect differing opinions as 
   long as their from people that seem to know the field.
   
   I thought the switch to 2nd gen put up whatever you want was a 
   departure from earlier FCC stand ... when all 1st gen cellular 
   systems would follow the TIA approved AMPS standard.  Why do I think 
   the change was not for our best?  Because the US manufacturers went 
   from world domination of cellular (you could take your amps phone 
   anywhere in the world), to last place (almost the entire world 
   adopted the GSM standard in the face of the US meltdown in digital 
   cellular standards). 

  So, who set the standard for toilet paper roll size?  

  Sort of off topic, to be sure, but, exactly what does having a universal 
  standard do for us?  

  Oh, wait, you can buy toilet paper in several sizes.   Doesn't seem to have 
  caused my posterior a lot of grief, though. 

  Ok, silliness aside, we have some remnant AMPS left, a few vestiges of the 
  old TDMA system and the a couple implementations that are CDMA, and then 
  IDEN. Oh, yeah, the US flavor of GSM. That's just where I live.

  How long... or, should I say, what, is even the remote possibility

Re: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history....

2007-03-03 Thread Rich Comroe
I think we've nailed this one.

I get the impression you define front edge as greatest market penetration 
or most sales or most copied.  I define it as the being the one that takes 
off on their own and tries what everyone else is NOT doing.

We've found common ground ... in that we recognize that we each want different 
things.  I'm not looking for the most fun, or the fanciest or latest 
technology or choice to do whatever I want.  I define best as what serves 
the most people at the best price.  I further define what I believe is the best 
decision basis by my government as what best serves the American people and 
American industry.  As you pointed out, sometimes American industries do not 
correctly perceive what is in their own best interest (they sometimes make poor 
choices) and they suffer.  I agree, shame on them.  But I really think it's 
awful when America loses whole markets ... that's lost jobs ... not just for 
the manufacturers, but their suppliers, transporters, etc, across the entire 
American workforce.  It doesn't matter whether they're cutting technology or 
not (while many of these lost markets WERE cutting technology at the time).  
This has hurt all Americans in so many ways.

BTW - While I understand our perspectives differ, the only point I'd challenge 
in your last reply is:
But I would bet that, like WCDMA, the better ideas come from here.
No, it didn't.  WCDMA is the European Wideband CDMA selected by ETSI for 3rd 
generation cellular.  European standards organizations go out of their way to 
not intentionally select anything from America.  Like all standards bodies, it 
is moved to what they perceive as to the advantage of its members.  And if you 
think this is evolutionary from GSM/GPRS - WCDMA I don't know what to tell 
you.  I tried to point out the jump in technology that they are bridging in the 
last post, and to me it's completely revolutionary.

regards,
Rich
p.s.  I have to admit that I used to think in complete agreement with your line 
of argument when I was much younger.  I don't know whether you're younger than 
me or the same age, but for me 30 yrs in industry changed many of my 
perspectives!  :-)

- Original Message - 
  From: wispa 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 4:56 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history


  On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 14:01:32 -0600, Rich Comroe wrote
   Sort of off topic, to be sure, but, exactly what does having a universal 
   standard do for us?
   
   Aren't all the toilet paper rolls the same width for your roller?  
   Donn't all the toilets mount in the same size base fitting?  :-)

  Actually, not at all. 

   
   How long... or, should I say, what, is even the remote possibility, that 
   Europe will switch should we invent something far better than GSM?  Size 
   creates inertia.  Inertia and mass create friction and friction resists 
   movement.
   
   Oh, contrair.  With the size of the worldwide GSM there is lots of 
   momentum behind its evolution.  

  You confirmed exactly what I said.  Evolution.  Not revolution. 

  GPRS happened and was available in 
   the same time-frame as US based 21/2G solutions.  Next, GSM is 
   migrating to WCDMA (the standard version of the EVDO's we're 
   seeing being deployed around here).
   
   But what's the chances of 
   getting every nation of the EU to move, other than minor evolutionary 
   movements with full backward compatibiilty, for some time to come?
   
   WCDMA is hardly a minor evolutionary movement.  GSM is essentially 
   switching from a 300KHz or so TDMA to a 5MHz CDMA (as I said, it 
   looks very much like the EVDO's you see deployed around here). 


  What's to say it isn't minor?  Only that nobody has stepped up to the plate 
  yet with something big?   There is no market in Europe for something big, 
  only evolution.   That's not good enough for me.  

Every nation in the EU, and for that part, most every other nation 
   on the planet that adopted GSM will move.  They enjoy the benefits 
   of price that only come from the power of volume manufacturing far 
   beyond any non-standard US specific technology.

  H... I can't find any price benefit.  Really, I can't.  I've attempted to 
  find the price of airtime and phones in Europe... and all I can find costs 
  more than here.  

   
   Ahh, but you see chaos and disorder.  I see opportunity knocking and 
   excitement.
   
   Yes, very exciting indeed.  I worked for a US manufacturer that slid 
   from #1 in world sales down to perhaps #3 in handsets (and off the 
   chart in infastructure) in that very market.  All the dominant world 
   manufacturers in cellular today are foreign and riding the GSM world 
   standard.  We all know the US has completely lost numerous high 
   technology markets forever.  We lost computer memories, automobiles, 
   TVs, VCRs, and cellular (among many others).  Behind each lost 
   market is a unique story.  In the case

Re: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history....

2007-03-02 Thread Rich Comroe
Scriv-

When does this happen?  Uhhh ... every representative to every standards body 
that works for a manufacturer is lobbying for what that manufacturer sees as 
best for their company ... which is not necessarily in alignment with what's 
best for the public or the operators.  Standards participation is considered a 
business tool.  It's that way in ASTM, TIA, ETSI, IEEE, IETF.  The rules of 
these bodies vary greatly in the qualification of users groups to be voting 
members (the IETF is the most liberal in this respect ... I think virtually ANY 
participant can vote).  Whenever a body is deliberating on something pertinent 
to an organized industry association, it's important (vital) that the 
association has an active, VOTING, membership ... and apply that vote to what 
they feel is best for their represented industry.  Does WISPA have a voting 
membership in the IEEE group formulating the WiMAX standard?  It's vital.

Mark-

IMO the FCC has certainly been just responding to the market over the last 
15yrs (as you advocate).  Over this period I think I've become more and more 
against this as I assess how this has left the US and our airways.  In my 
opinion it's a BAD thing when I'm standing under a cell tower that cannot 
service my phone even though it's the same frequency.  In Europe all towers are 
mandated compatible as was PREVIOUSLY true in the US (while the EC still 
regulates European airways for what's best for their people).  The US airway 
have become a free-for-all of non-compatible technologies, with destructive 
consequences for US manufacturers, operators, and the public in general.  When 
I worked for a manufacturer I voted what management judged was best for that 
manufacturer.  However, I'm now retired, and I've become a vocal advocate that 
the FCC should resume the role it once held as oversee-er to (at minimum) 
insure that all deployed equipment plays nice (if not compatibly).  I'm 
disappointed that FCC rules for unlicensed outdoor (all bands) never mandated a 
minimum set of play-nice media access rules (not to say I didn't cheerfully 
participate in a proprietary MAC product when I worked for one manufacturer ... 
but I think I've seen the error of those ways).

The classic argument against this is that it inhibits innovation.  Not true 
IMHO.  Just look at the 2.4GHz IEEE standards.  An organized standards body 
can, and does evolve standards (802.11b - 802.11g) such that it is 
COORDINATED.  It's simply not true that standards lock you into obsolete 
technology.  I think the FCC relinquished its responsibility during the 2nd 
generation cellular licensing process where they became infatuated with how 
much the auctions could net monetarily ... if they simply allowed the winner to 
deploy whatever technology they felt like.  The airways belong to the American 
people.  It's my government, and I wished they acted in my best interests ... 
and not as a revenue generator for the federal budget.

Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: John Scrivner 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 1:14 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history


  Brilliant - standards building as a means of disabling US access to 
  technology innovation. Wow. I certainly hope you have vision enough to 
  see and thwart this type of activity in the future. I have heard you 
  have the intellectual knowledge to do so. Please let us know when to cry 
  foul in the future.
  Scriv


  Rich Comroe wrote:

  Some wireless business phone systems have  been built, but it is all but 
  impossible to find, if you search for u-pcs specific products. 
  
  
  
  Search for a different name: PHS.  It was fascinating to walk the streets 
of Tokyo and see crowded areas where hundreds of people would be talking on 
their 1880-1930MHz PHS phones (Personal Handyphone System).  It became a public 
CRAZE to take your digital cordless home-phones with you, and thousands of 
mating digital cordless phone base units poped up everywhere on every street 
corner and shopping area.
  

  
  Speculation as to why the spectrum lies fallow and almost completely unused 
  tends to revolve around the FCC requiring specific protocols and procedures 
  for interference avoidance and around the extremely low ERP limits. I don't 
  know that they're right or wrong.   
  
  
  
  It seems only natural that the FCC set a protocol standard, as it could 
never work if every manufacturer's model were non-compatible one another (just 
like WiFi).  Roaming and interoperability are essential if you want your 
cordless phone to work when in range of any base unit.
  
  While wildly popular in Japan, it never caught on in other places.  England 
tried it with their CT2 (called TelePoint) and it flopped (the dogs wouldn't 
eat it, and there were more base units than handsets when it was cancelled).  
According to wikipedia its popularity in Japan eventually faded as well, while 
it's enjoying

Re: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history....

2007-03-02 Thread Rich Comroe
We don't have to agree.  I certainly respect differing opinions as long as 
their from people that seem to know the field.

I thought the switch to 2nd gen put up whatever you want was a departure from 
earlier FCC stand ... when all 1st gen cellular systems would follow the TIA 
approved AMPS standard.  Why do I think the change was not for our best?  
Because the US manufacturers went from world domination of cellular (you could 
take your amps phone anywhere in the world), to last place (almost the entire 
world adopted the GSM standard in the face of the US meltdown in digital 
cellular standards).  You can dislike GSM, but it became the defacto world 
standard and you can take your GSM phone anywhere.  US cellular manufacturers 
world market share plumeted, and manufacturers that built to the USDC (TIA 
IS54) and CDMA (TIA IS95) found very few foreign markets that would accept 
product.  The US became one of the very few nations on the planet where a 
carrier could deploy anything they wanted.  The NexTel system, likewise, can be 
found almost nowhere except US / Canada.  Pick any 2 people in the US with 
cellphones, and it's more likely than not they are incompatible  not able to 
receive service from the same tower.  Technically it provides everyone in the 
entire United States with inferior coverage (considering the number of total 
towers providing service), more expensive phones (multi-mode), inferior voice 
quality (extra voice decoding / recoding becuase they all have incompatible 
voice codecs), and additional voice latency.  Eventually European GSM became 
yet another US deployed technology adding to the mish-mosh.

US Standards participants coined the phrase if one standard is good, multiple 
standards are better.  This is non-sense.  If there's not a single standard 
you have no standard.  A single standards does not inhibit technology, because 
standards continuously evolve and eventually extend to new technologies in a 
compatible, planned way.  Just look at 802.11 ... it's a classic example of an 
evolving standard.  Standards do inhibit something ... but it's not 
technology ... its the choice to deploy whatever you want.  It imposes a 
certain discipline for the general public ... which I think is a good thing.  
It's disheartening as all hell to look at a field near me with 4 antenna towers 
(3 of them 500ft) and a different wisp providing service from each (from an 
interference standpoint).  There's roughly 30 different 5.7GHz transmitters all 
within 1000ft and LOS of each other.  There's so many examples like this which 
simply scream at you that the wisps would collectively have benefitted were 
some minimum media access procedures common across all these devices.

Anyways, I appreciate your thoughts and enjoy comparing differing opinions.

peace,
Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: wispa 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 3:22 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history


  On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:56:40 -0600, Rich Comroe wrote

   Scriv- 
   
   Mark- 
   
   IMO the FCC has certainly been just responding to the market over 
   the last 15yrs (as you advocate).   

  Actually, I disagree.  I think the FCC was attempting to create a market on 
  their own.  Cellular type service flourished.  The envisioned unlicensed 
  PCS was a flop.   

  I'm not going to profess to have the definitive answer as to why, my view 
  of the topic is totally WISP centric,  I don't really CARE about spectrum 
  reserved for devices that can't reach more than a couple hundred feet at 
  absolute best.  I just think that we might gain some understanding of 
  what's going on if we look at a current flop and success.   

  I'm not really sure the FCC is responding to the market, either.  I think 
  it responds to what those who can influence it say, and the motives for 
  what anyone says to it are never totally selfless altruism.  We want 3650 
  for our enrichment.  But with that enrichment comes competitive services 
  that benefit our customers.   One wit once said that democratic self 
  governance is the worst form of governance, save all the rest, and many 
  other parallels have been drawn by wiser folks than me.   

  I'd restate it to say that free enterprise is the worst form of delivering 
  necessities... except for any other form that's been invented so far. 

  So while it's easy to knock and criticise the jumble we call our cellular 
  and internet providing system, there's simply not a real better 
  alternative. 


  Over this period I think I've 
   become more and more against this as I assess how this has left 
   the US and our airways.  In my opinion it's a BAD thing when I'm 
   standing under a cell tower that cannot service my phone even 
   though it's the same frequency.   

  I could not disagree more.  There's nothing more frustrating than being 
  stuck with a one technology must fit and serve for all set of rules. 

  I LEFT

Re: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history....

2007-03-01 Thread Rich Comroe
Some wireless business phone systems have  been built, but it is all but 
impossible to find, if you search for u-pcs specific products. 

Search for a different name: PHS.  It was fascinating to walk the streets of 
Tokyo and see crowded areas where hundreds of people would be talking on their 
1880-1930MHz PHS phones (Personal Handyphone System).  It became a public CRAZE 
to take your digital cordless home-phones with you, and thousands of mating 
digital cordless phone base units poped up everywhere on every street corner 
and shopping area.

Speculation as to why the spectrum lies fallow and almost completely unused 
tends to revolve around the FCC requiring specific protocols and procedures 
for interference avoidance and around the extremely low ERP limits. I don't 
know that they're right or wrong.   

It seems only natural that the FCC set a protocol standard, as it could never 
work if every manufacturer's model were non-compatible one another (just like 
WiFi).  Roaming and interoperability are essential if you want your cordless 
phone to work when in range of any base unit.

While wildly popular in Japan, it never caught on in other places.  England 
tried it with their CT2 (called TelePoint) and it flopped (the dogs wouldn't 
eat it, and there were more base units than handsets when it was cancelled).  
According to wikipedia its popularity in Japan eventually faded as well, while 
it's enjoying a resurgence in other Asian markets.

Unfortunately it looks like the US allocation didn't match the Japanese 
allocation exactly or you could just purchase Japanese product (there seemed 
like hundreds of different models for sale on the streets of Akihabara).  
However, back then it was often INTENTIONAL to NOT set the US rules the same as 
in other countries as a way of preventing existing foreign products from being 
imported.  Who lobbies for the protocol and procedure rules the FCC adopted?  
Likely US manufacturers who would never have had a chance to get started were 
US band rules set the same as Japans.  Problem is, if US manufacturers choose 
not to step-up, no product becomes available.  Unfortunately I am personally 
aware of examples where manufacturers intentionally lobbied for rules that 
would make existing foreign radios noncompatible even though they had no 
intention of building.  It happens.  You likely never heard of a product called 
DSRR either (digital short range radio) which was allocated but intentionally 
torpedoed by manufacturers lobbying for standards that they knowingly never 
intended to build to.

Rich

  - Original Message - 
  From: wispa 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 8:53 PM
  Subject: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history


  In the early 90's the FCC set about to create additional unlicensed and 
  licensed spectrum.  This was specifically for PCS, or personal 
  communications services.   

  UTAM was created and tasked with the job of migrating what was then a large 
  network of terrestrial microwave networks to other frequencies / spectrum.   
  Over 100 mhz of spectrum was cleared by hte FCC / UTAM and in the mid 90's 
  it began to be auctioned off to PCS providers.  Sprint, I believe, was the 
  first to offer services using this spectrum - ergo, Sprint PCS. UTAM then 
  acted as frequency coordinator as new users came in and old users migrated - 
  especially for unlicensed. 

  Of this spectrum, 1910 to 1930 mhz and 2390 to 2400 mhz is now unlicensed 
  spectrum.  Originally a larger slice, eventually part of it was given to 
  Nextel and part devoted to AWS (advanced Wireless SErvices) and auctioned 
  off.  Why?  The space, after years, was still almost utterly unused. 

  Smack dab in the middle of the PCS spectrum lies fallow ground.  Search the 
  internet and you're unable to find U-PCS (Unlicensed PCS) products.  UTAM 
  cleared hte spectrum, and fees from manufacturers of the products for this 
  spectrum were to be used to pay back the costs of liberating the unlicensed 
  spectrum.  Today those fees are $50k per manufacturer and $0.50 per device 
  to use the space. 

  U-PCS has very low ERP limits, it's useful for in-building phones or 
  networking devices.  HOwever, the FCC created its own version of a non- 
  interference protocol and specified channel maximum and minimum sizes, and 
  nobody built networking devices for that frequency.   

  Some wireless business phone systems have  been built, but it is all but 
  impossible to find, if you search for u-pcs specific products. 

  UTAM remains millions of dollars in debt after paying users to clear the 
  microwave spectrum.   

  Speculation as to why the spectrum lies fallow and almost completely unused 
  tends to revolve around the FCC requiring specific protocols and procedures 
  for interference avoidance and around the extremely low ERP limits. I don't 
  know that they're right or wrong.   

  Each time the FCC promotes the idea of more 

Re: [WISPA] Anyone Seen AppleTV yet ?

2007-02-28 Thread Rich Comroe
I haven't been following compression formats all that closely but I've been 
amazed what things like SlingBox can do with only a couple hundred 
kiloBITS/second (not even kilobytes/sec).  I think it's microsoft asf (is that 
mpeg4?) and I've seen good quality sent UPSTREAM from customer cpe (within the 
typically lower upstream cap).

Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: David E. Smith 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 7:36 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Anyone Seen AppleTV yet ?


  Rick Smith wrote:
   Wonder what kinda bandwidth this will eat up.
  
   http://www.apple.com/appletv/
  Not much more than what your customers are already using. Basically, it 
  lets you watch purchased content from iTunes on your television. iTunes 
  has sold TV shows for quite a while now.

  If it tried to stream content, there might be an issue, but AFAIK it 
  doesn't do that.

  Heck, aside from the iTunes hook, a soft-modded Xbox makes a much 
  better media center, and you can probably find one at your local pawn 
  shop for fifty bucks. :-)

  David Smith
  MVN.net

  -- 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Re: Hard truths (was TV white spaces)

2007-02-06 Thread Rich Comroe
Amen, and well said.  There is a lot that an industry org can do in this 
respect.  I'm familiar with APCO and find many similarities.  (key: APCO = 
Association of Publicsafety Communications Officials ... www.apcointl.org)  
Here's some examples.  
  1.. Speak for the industry to the FCC.  APCO's board forms committees that 
respond under APCO's name to all FCC inquiries.  Wispa seems to be doing 
alright in this regard by volunteer effort rather than organization.
  2.. Set positions to its membership on FCC issues.  I hear the wispa 
leadership expressing their opinions on things like the FCC forms.  Are they 
speaking for themselves, or are they speaking an officially formulated position 
for wispa?  If wispa has set a position on these FCC forms, are their positions 
found on a website?  Does wispa have a procedure to formulate an official 
position?  I sense wispa's growing into this role.
  3.. I think Steve Stroh is right on the money regarding recommended 
systems.  APCO for example plays a major role in this regard.  Wispa could 
create official positions on what equipment is approved (legal), what is not, 
etc.  APCO goes further, establishing a role of influence regarding desired.  
For example, while there's no way to deny how much the standards such as 
802.11h  WiMAX may influence wisps, but is there any formulating participation 
under wispa's name?  APCO goes much further taking a leadership role in the 
formulation of equipment standards for their recommended use.  Every city is 
free to purchase and deploy any equipment they choose.  But APCO established a 
position on interoperability 10 years ago (I was a participant) and ultimately 
I think the new Democratic congress will budget some federal money for 
inon-interoperable deployed systems to be replaced with APCO's recommendation 
as one of the previously unfunded recommendations of the 9/11 committee.  The 
moral of this story is that when there's federal money being earmarked for 
broadband it's vital that wispa have a position (not just voices of volunteer 
membership).
I recognize that this isn't necessarily a fair comparison.  APCO had a source 
of income to draw on (frequency coordinator for public safety systems) beyond 
simple membership dues.  It's tough when participation of all members is 
essentially unpaid overtime.  Wispa is more like ASNA in this respect (American 
SMR Network Association ... an industry association of Specialized Mobile Radio 
operators ... very much like wisps).  I just wanted to chime-in support of 
Steve's observations of what he suggests wispa might do in regards to setting 
positions on equipment.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Steve Stroh 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 6:12 PM
  Subject: [WISPA] Re: Hard truths (was TV white spaces)



  John:

  It's a hard truth that any industry association defacto represents  
  their ENTIRE industry... not just the ones who deign to become dues- 
  paying members of that industry association. In the eyes of  
  lawmakers, regulators, the public, investors, analysts, etc., if  
  WISPA purports to represent the WISP industry, it must be prepared to  
  speak about, and be knowledgeable of, the ENTIRE WISP industry, even  
  those participants of an industry that a formal association such as  
  WISPA would simply rather NOT even acknowledge the existence of.

  It's NOT one vendor's job, no matter how fundamentally important to a  
  particular industry, to try to police the other vendors in an  
  industry. If government will not police the bad players, then it  
  falls to industry groups such as WISPA, and WISPA could easily do  
  such a thing by maintaining an annually updated recommended systems  
  list available to all. For a vendor's products to be on that list  
  would be somewhat rigorous, having to document that their system  
  meets all relevant regulations. A favorite product doesn't make the  
  list? Maybe there's a reason why, and a prospective user of such a  
  system is given considerable pause.

  In my opinion, based on nearly TEN years of following the WISP  
  industry nearly from its inception, I think Patrick considerably  
  understates the case about many... (I won't go quite as far as to say  
  most) WISPs not being compliant with FCC rules, even the recently  
  liberalized rules that permit mixing and matching of antennas. One  
  can gather ample evidence of this just from comments made on this list.

  Finally... if there is ANYONE the WISP industry that has earned the  
  right to speak such hard truths, it is Patrick Leary. Patrick has  
  been a TIRELESS, FEARLESS, INCREDIBLY VALUABLE advocate for the WISP  
  industry, especially in its formative years. He has personally  
  advocated on behalf of the WISP industry to government personnel as  
  high as FCC Chairman Powell, as well as promoting the WISP industry  
  to investors, legislators, officials of other countries... and 

Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Rich Comroe
DOT is ***supposed*** to switch to DSRC for this.  DSRC was allocated 75MHz at 
5.9Ghz just above the U-NII band based on roadway  highway needs such as this 
DOT application.  I participated in DSRC formulation enough to know that DOT 
had been experimenting with UL for years for highway signage applications in 
anticipation of DSRC.  I believe there's a good case to be made that they 
should migrate away from UL as soon as DSRC equipment is available ... but alas 
I don't think it's available yet.  This would be an appropriate topic for a 
wispa position.
  - Original Message - 
  From: cw 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 7:35 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces


  I don't know how you expect the industry to police itself when the FCC acts 
  deaf. Next time you encounter a damnit remark, add state government to the 
  list of not playing nice. Our footprint is the Florida Keys. Last year the 
  department of transportation decided to erect giant poles down the center of 
  our one highway to put up signs to tell us whether our highway was busy or 
  not and suggest no alternate route when it was (it's our only road).

  They used 5.8GHz DSSS and 2.4GHz DSSS both for the poles to talk to each 
  other. Grid antennas polluted the spectrum even more. Because of the narrow 
  geographic nature of the islands and the highway being in the center, one 
  can't even use a 5.8GHz cordless phone inside their home anymore. When we 
  called Tallahassee to complain, the head of the DoT IT dept wanted to know 
  why we weren't using 4.9GHz for the buoy link the signs killed.

  WISPs aren't the only ones shitting in their nests. Every day they pile it 
  higher and one just has to figure out another way around the edges. - cw

  Patrick Leary wrote:
   No FUD being slung here. On the 4.9 issue I filed that question and deal
   with that assumption quite a bit. I suspect your definition of WISP is
   more narrow than mine. Mine includes ANY entity providing services with
   wireless broadband gear. There are utility-based WISPs, telco WISPs,
   large funded WISPs, Mom and Pop WISPs, rural WISPs, etc. The fact is
   that the public is not able and does not differentiate between all the
   competing groups of WISPs and groups like WISPA should understand that.
   
  - Original Message - 
  I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
  the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
  WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
  lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.
  
  From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the
  usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
  people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
  to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.
  
  Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
  will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected.
  The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
  discouraging the slippery slope.
  -- 
  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] Blackberry vs. Palm

2007-02-01 Thread Rich Comroe
No, EVDO and RTT1X are the data modulations that the PPC6700 can do, which the 
Sprint network supports.  The Sprint option plan for data is called 
PowerVision, and includes unlimited internet to the phone ... pretty sweet, and 
for only a few dollars a month over the phone service.  With PowerVision I 
don't think you're supposed to use it tethered to your PC ... they sell 
separate packages for EVDO PCMCIA cards.  But with the original installed 
Windows Mobile (don't download the sprint provided OS update) I can run dial-up 
network thru the phone via USB cable or bluetooth.  However, I find the PPC6700 
big display  slide-out keyboard sufficient for daily use.

Thanks to you David for the clue that there was a windows mobile version of 
Slingbox player.  Didn't know that.  Loaded it up and it's great!

Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Tom DeReggi 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:18 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Blackberry vs. Palm


  Sounds like that may be the way to go.

  almost everything through cell EVDO - X1 data

  Is that a Sprint plan option? Or through another carrier's service?

  Tom DeReggi
  RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
  IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: David T. Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 2:30 PM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] Blackberry vs. Palm


  I use the Sprint 6700 Pocket PC Windows based smartphone and I can connect
   to almost everything through cell EVDO - X1 data, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi (802.11
   B/G) and it can receive email and IMs in the background. I can watch TV on
   it from my Slingbox located at my home, keep up with info from the Web and
   it has 1 gig SD card for backup, etc. Plus, I leave a little room on the
   card for a few of my country music tunes (grin)
  
  
   Dave
  
  
   David T. Hughes
   Director, Corporate Communications
   Roadstar Internet Inc.
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Cell(703) 587-3282
   Home   (703) 234-9969
  
  
  
   -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
   Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
   Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:14 AM
   To: WISPA General List
   Subject: Re: [WISPA] Blackberry vs. Palm
  
   I had a Palm phone. The draw back is occationally they loose their 
   internal
   battery power the the Flash, and you loose all the software and configs
   loaded.
   So its hard to rely on anything you put on it, and must rely on the Sync 
   to
   destop for data retention.
   Do any of the hand helds, have rock solid storage systems, that are near
   impossible to wipe out? Such as Compact Flash or HardDisk?
  
   I LOVE my Sprint Phone. It has taken more abuse than any device on earth
   should be capable of taking, and keeps ticking. (dropped off a tower at 
   200
   ft, Caught up in a Car Wheel well (wrapped around front wheel drive shaft)
   and driven 20 miles).  And the Voice quality is the BEST or most 
   consistent
   of any service that I've used in DC, based on attempting to communicate 
   with
  
   Field techs with their various phone service provider brands.  Where the
   Sprint falls short is Internet Access and messaging.  We were never able 
   to
   figure out how to pass data into the needed messaging field correctly, and
   it does not have full Internet Access for remote anywhere access to do
   critical low bandwidth things like remote access to reboot radios.
  
   The Cingular on the other hand, had crappy voice, but we get meaningful
   easilly to check alerting, and Instant Internet access adequate for low
   bandwidth usage.
   As much as I hate to leave Sprint after 10 years, I may have to change to
   Cingular, or get an EVDO portable device.
  
   I never really understood the Blackberry thing. But what I will say is 
   that
   every executive that uses a Blackberry, that I do business with,  has
   excellent and timely communication with me. I don't believe in
   cooincidences. There is something uniquely advantages about the Blackberry
   other than just its exchange integration. But I have not put my finger on
   what it is.
  
   I've avoided the srpint change because my hearing is so bad, and the 
   Sprint
   makes all the difference. But in todays generation, as an IT company we 
   can
   not ignore the mobile broadband advantage.  I still believe that for the
   average consumer, portal broadband is unnecessary. But for support
   personelle and mobile work force, it is a REAL big time and money saver.
   Technology is the secret to response time.  Plus Sprint's evil billing
   practices have been getting annoying recently.  But then again, Sprint's
   unlimited Text Messaging doesn't send me random $400 Text message bills 
   like
  
   Cincular had the ability to do from time to time.  (I think they charged 
   per
  
   page, We had to change all our Alerting to be several lines, 

Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-25 Thread Rich Comroe
Wow!  Thanks much.  So linux bandwidth management implements the Token Bucket 
Algorithm in its queue controls, which is similar to, but not the same as the 
Leaky Bucket Algorithm I'm familiar with.  I'm trying to understand the subtle 
diference, but it'll take some time:

Now that I've read about the Token Bucket Algorithm from the Linux URL you 
provided, I've found a source that contrasts them (shamelessly, it's 
wikipedia!):
Two predominant methods for shaping traffic exist: a leaky bucket 
implementation and a token bucket implementation. Sometimes the leaky bucket 
and token bucket algorithms are mistakenly lumped together under the same name. 
Both these schemes have distinct properties and are used for distinct purposes 
[1]. They differ principally in that the leaky bucket imposes a hard limit on 
the data transmission rate, whereas the token bucket allows a certain amount of 
burstiness while imposing a limit on the average data transmission rate.

I can't say I understand the difference yet, but I'm motivated.  Does anyone 
else understand or know how to explain the difference?

Rich



  - Original Message - 
  From: Ryan Langseth 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:44 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management



  On Jan 24, 2007, at 8:25 PM, Rich Comroe wrote:

   Thanks much.  I love it when you talk technical!  Sorry, couldn't  
   help it...
  
   No really, the devil is always in the details in these things.   
   This is just the detail I was looking for.  After I digest I hope I  
   may send questions your way off-list.  Still hoping operators using  
   other brands will share what bw management algorithms they may have  
   built-in.
  
  If you are looking for a better understanding of some of the traffic  
  control systems, the Linux Advanced Routing and Traffic Control  
  manual is a good place to look. Starting at chapter 9, it goes into  
  some detail on how some of the the algorithms available work and how  
  to implement them.

  http://lartc.org
  http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.qdisc.html

   thanks again,
   Rich


  -Ryan

  --
  InvisiMax
  Ryan Langseth
  Systems Administrator
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  work: (218) 745-6030






  -- 
  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] Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-25 Thread Rich Comroe
Great reference and I've learned a tremendous amount from this list.  I learned 
that I have been mis-using the term Leaky Bucket.  I now understand that what 
Jason described to the list is Token Bucket (I was totally wet in my earlier 
reply calling it Leaky Bucket).

Radios that implement bw management vary considerably in sophistication of 
their bw management algorithms.  I'm really impressed with the Alvarion bw 
management.  Canopy has bw management built-in as well, but it seems less 
sophisticated.  I'm also impressed with what I've learned Linux advanced bw 
management can do at the head-end if your radios don't.

Given radios can be bridged or not, bw management in the in-radio 
implementations seem better ... because I don't see how head-end bw management 
can distinguish between bw to multiple destinations behind the same customer 
radio if the radios are bridged.  Even if the radios are not bridged, then I'd 
see in-radio bw management as 'still' better because bw limited at the customer 
radio doesn't chew up inbound rf capacity, while in head-end bw management the 
rf inbound capacity gets burned whether the traffic is ultimately limited or 
not.

Anyways, I'm getting a great deal from the discussion, and would love to hear 
if other radios have built-in bw management and what method is use for 
comparison (any Trango users who could possibly comment?).

Rich
  From: Ryan Langseth 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:44 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management



  On Jan 24, 2007, at 8:25 PM, Rich Comroe wrote:

   Thanks much.  I love it when you talk technical!  Sorry, couldn't  
   help it...
  
   No really, the devil is always in the details in these things.   
   This is just the detail I was looking for.  After I digest I hope I  
   may send questions your way off-list.  Still hoping operators using  
   other brands will share what bw management algorithms they may have  
   built-in.
  
  If you are looking for a better understanding of some of the traffic  
  control systems, the Linux Advanced Routing and Traffic Control  
  manual is a good place to look. Starting at chapter 9, it goes into  
  some detail on how some of the the algorithms available work and how  
  to implement them.

  http://lartc.org
  http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.qdisc.html

   thanks again,
   Rich


  -Ryan

  --
  InvisiMax
  Ryan Langseth
  Systems Administrator
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  work: (218) 745-6030






  -- 
  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] Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-25 Thread Rich Comroe
My precious!

It further occurs to me that even if you have radio built-in bw management you 
would also be pretty smart to have bw management enabled at the head-end, too.  
Why?  Radio built-in bw management will block customer excess rate inbound 
customer traffic from wasting your rf capacity between CPE  Access Point, but 
if you've got rf backhaul to the site you need head-end bw management as well 
to block excess rate outbound customer traffic from wasting the rf backhaul bw 
before it ever reaches the AP's outbound bw management.  And the outbound bw is 
typically greater than the inbound bw anyway.  So it now looks prudent to me to 
have BOTH bw management built into the radios, AND at the head-end.

Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jason 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:31 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management


  From what I understand, there are many types of qdisc (HTB, CBQ, Prio, 
  on and on) that you can invoke with the 'tc' linux command.  HTB is the 
  'Hierarchical Token Bucket' that you hear a lot about because it works 
  well.  HTB should not be confused with 'Hierarchical TOLKIEN Bucket' 
  that has something to do with the Lord of the Rings.  'Leaky Bucket' is 
  a reference to my brains as I try to grasp bandwidth shaping.

  Jason

  Rich Comroe wrote:
   Great reference and I've learned a tremendous amount from this list.  I 
learned that I have been mis-using the term Leaky Bucket.  I now understand 
that what Jason described to the list is Token Bucket (I was totally wet in my 
earlier reply calling it Leaky Bucket).
  
   Radios that implement bw management vary considerably in sophistication of 
their bw management algorithms.  I'm really impressed with the Alvarion bw 
management.  Canopy has bw management built-in as well, but it seems less 
sophisticated.  I'm also impressed with what I've learned Linux advanced bw 
management can do at the head-end if your radios don't.
  
   Given radios can be bridged or not, bw management in the in-radio 
implementations seem better ... because I don't see how head-end bw management 
can distinguish between bw to multiple destinations behind the same customer 
radio if the radios are bridged.  Even if the radios are not bridged, then I'd 
see in-radio bw management as 'still' better because bw limited at the customer 
radio doesn't chew up inbound rf capacity, while in head-end bw management the 
rf inbound capacity gets burned whether the traffic is ultimately limited or 
not.
  
   Anyways, I'm getting a great deal from the discussion, and would love to 
hear if other radios have built-in bw management and what method is use for 
comparison (any Trango users who could possibly comment?).
  
   Rich
 From: Ryan Langseth 
 To: WISPA General List 
 Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:44 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management
  
  
  
 On Jan 24, 2007, at 8:25 PM, Rich Comroe wrote:
  
  Thanks much.  I love it when you talk technical!  Sorry, couldn't  
  help it...
 
  No really, the devil is always in the details in these things.   
  This is just the detail I was looking for.  After I digest I hope I  
  may send questions your way off-list.  Still hoping operators using  
  other brands will share what bw management algorithms they may have  
  built-in.
 
 If you are looking for a better understanding of some of the traffic  
 control systems, the Linux Advanced Routing and Traffic Control  
 manual is a good place to look. Starting at chapter 9, it goes into  
 some detail on how some of the the algorithms available work and how  
 to implement them.
  
 http://lartc.org
 http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.qdisc.html
  
  thanks again,
  Rich
  
  
 -Ryan
  
 --
 InvisiMax
 Ryan Langseth
 Systems Administrator
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 work: (218) 745-6030
  
  
  
  
  
  
 -- 
 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] Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-24 Thread Rich Comroe
This thread should not hit a nerve, as I think it has.  I've read a lot of your 
stuff, so I know you're a bright guy.  You know that while telephone talk-time 
may not be metered for many phone services that if everyone picked up their 
phone that the chances of getting a trunk out of your local office would drop 
to zero.  That's just science, not marketing.

No matter how your terms of service are sold there's a real engineering metric 
called erlangs per user, and it's expected value is much-much less than 1.  
This is traffic engineering, not marketing.  It's the real science behind what 
most wisps describe as oversubscription.  The lower the average erlangs per 
user the more users a given bandwidth serves.  There are actually textbooks and 
mature classes on the subject going back 40 years (the science was matured long 
ago by telephone engineering from the Bell System).

It's a legitimate concern what to do about users that statistically use x10 
fold, x100 fold, or even x1000 fold or more over the average.  Unless you're a 
service provider with a statistically HUGE number of users you cannot afford to 
let the averages take care of themselves as phone carriers do.  Even so, with 
the typically small number of users per access point, a statistically anomalous 
user can destroy service to other customers unlucky to share the same channel 
... it's something that simply MUST be addressed.

What the writer described, I call the leaky bucket algorithm, and there are 
some wisp manufacturers that actually code this into their radio products (no 
need to perform it via a head-end traffic shaper).  If your deployed radios do 
not, a head-end traffic shaper can do the same thing.

It's referred to as the leaky bucket algorithm because it's has a physical 
similarity.  Imagine a bucket of a given size that has a leak ... through which 
the user draws water.  In an instant, the user cannot draw more water than the 
bucket currently holds (referred to as burst size).  Once the bucket, or burst 
size, has been drawn, the user cannot draw more than the bucket's refill rate 
(referred to as sustained rate).  Radios with this built-in typically specify a 
burst size and sustained rate per CPE, for inbound, and for outbound (4 
parameters in total).  I'm familiar with many wisps that set the burst sizes to 
10M (don't know any that set it to 1G as the author hypothesized), and set 
sustained rates at 256kbps or 384kbps.  The interesting thing about the 
algorithm is that burst size is dimensionless (it's only a size, and not a rate 
... the rate is determined by the radio channel and traffic levels), while the 
sustained rate is a true rate (bits/sec).

I appologize for the lecture, but traffic engineering has always been a topic 
of interest to me going way back.  But I have great concerns for the viability 
of wisps that don't appreciate the issue (unless they only sell business 
service where throughput per user is sold with SLAs ... engineering to a high 
erlang per user, or equivalently described as a low oversubscription rate).

regards,
Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Matt Liotta 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:49 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management


  Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any 
  and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to 
  deciding for the customer?

  -Matt

  Jason wrote:
   List,
  
  Several times in the last few weeks the topic of bandwidth 
   management has been discussed, but I Still Haven't Found What I'm 
   Lookin' For...  Here's what I'd like to do:
  
   1.  Each user starts with a big Internet Pipe.  This way casual 
   surfing and emails, etc. happen nice and snappy.
  
   2.  If a user downloads a big chunk of data, he needs to be shaped 
   to a lower data rate after a few minutes (I'm thinking 2 or 3 minutes).
  
   3.  Step 2 repeats over and over several times if the user continues 
   to download.
  
   4.  After the user quits hogging the network, his bandwidth is 
   restored in stages (backwards of 2 and 3).
  
   I know this, or at least similar things to it, are being done out 
   there.  The HughesNet satellite FAP works something like this (I don't 
   know the actual values):
  
   1.  Each user has a Bit Bucket that holds 1 Gig of bandwidth.
  
   2.  The Bit Bucket is replenished at 128k.
  
   3.  The speed at which the user can download from his bit bucket is 
   1meg.
  
   4.  If the user uses all the bits in his bucket faster than they are 
   replenished, he eventually gets only 128k.
  
   Does anyone know how to get something like this going?  I am 
   especially interested in Linux/Ubuntu solutions.
  
   Jason
  
  

  -- 
  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: 

Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management

2007-01-24 Thread Rich Comroe
 128-6,016 6,016
  SU-54 128-53,888 32,896 128-53,888 32,896

  Table 4-13: CIR Ranges and Defaults
  CIR Uplink and Downlink
  Unit Type Range (Kbps) Default (Kbps)
  SU-3 0-2,048 0
  SU-6 0-4,096 0
  SU-54 0-45,056 0

  4.2.6.6.2.5 Maximum Burst Duration (SU and AU)
  Sets the maximum time for accumulating burst transmission rights according to 
the Burst Duration algorithm. Available values range from 0 to 2000 
milliseconds). The default value is 5 (milliseconds), enabling a maximum burst 
of (0.005 X CIR) Kbps after a period of inactivity of 5 milliseconds or more.

  4.2.6.6.2.6 Maximum Delay (SU only)
  Sets the maximum permitted delay in the buffers system. As certain 
applications are very sensitive to delay, if relatively high delays are 
permitted, these applications may suffer from poor performance due to data 
accumulation in the buffers from other applications, such as FTP. The Maximum 
Delay parameter limits the number of available buffers. Data that is delayed 
more than the permitted maximum delay is discarded. If the SU supports 
applications that are very sensitive to delay, the value of the Maximum Delay 
should be decreased. Valid values range from 300 to 1 milliseconds. The 
default value is 5000 (milliseconds).

  4.2.6.6.2.7 Graceful Degradation Limit (AU only)
  Sets the limit on using the graceful degradation algorithm. In cases of over 
demand, the performance of all SUs is degraded proportionally to their CIR
  (IR=(100%-k%) x CIR). The graceful degradation algorithm is used as long as
  k ≤ K, where K is the Graceful Degradation Limit. Beyond this point the 
simple brute force algorithm is used. The Graceful Degradation Limit should 
be raised in proportion to the demand in the cell. The higher the expected 
demand in a cell, the higher the value of the Graceful Degradation Limit. 
Higher demand can be expected in cases of significant over  subscription and/or 
in deployments where a high number of subscribers are in locations without 
proper communication with the AU at the highest data rate. The available values 
range from 0 to 70 (%). The default value is 70 (%).

  4.2.6.6.2.8 MIR Only Option (AU only)
  When the MIR Only Option is enabled, it forces the MIR/CIR algorithm to use
  MIR values only. The MIR/CIR algorithm determines the actual information rate 
for each of the supported SUs under changing conditions of demand, based on the 
configured CIR and MIR values. When the MIR Only Option is enabled, the MIR/CIR 
algorithm is overridden and forced to operate with MIR values only. For 
example, the AU attempts to enable all SUs to transmit/receive information at 
the specified MIR value. When enabled, the graceful degradation algorithm, 
which is a part of the CIR/MIR algorithm, is also disabled. The default is 
Enable.

  4.2.6.6.2.9 Show MIR/CIR Parameters
  Displays the current values of the MIR and

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

  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Comroe
  Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 4:01 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advanced Bandwidth Management

  Fascinating.  I only spoke of leaky bucket because that's practically a match 
to what Jason originally described to the list (and I happen to know of radios 
that have this algorithm internally programmed -- happens to be Canopy).  But I 
presume there are other algorithms programmed to different manufacturer's 
radios.  Patrick, is it possible to share details of the Alvarion implemented 
4th gen algorithm you spoke of? 



   
   
  

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




  -- 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] SmartPhone Happiness...

2007-01-22 Thread Rich Comroe
Absolutely amazing how many windows phones have come out in the last few 
months.  Just 12 months ago there were only 3 ... and now there's got'ta be 
dozens.  I love my PPC6700 so much I bought a 2nd one ... EVDO / RTT1X / IS95 
tri-mode, bluetooth, wifi, camera, added a couple GB on mini-SD, slide-out full 
keyboard, huge screen.  Got Microsoft VC++ enterprise ... it comes with windows 
mobile 5 development environment.  But I was disappointed at how stripped down 
the windows mobile version of MFC was.

If you can get one without the neutered OS you'll be happier.  The carriers 
have stripped key networking components of the OS to keep you from using your 
phone as a wifi access point for nearby laptops.  I've got the original fully 
capable OS and it's amazing what you can do.  If you see a pop-up that says a 
newer version of OS is available, click here ... DON'T!!!  It's a neutered 
version from your carrier (not from Microsoft) which removes specific dial-up 
networking components to limit your abilities.

You mention Linux as the preferred platform.  My old Moto buddies tell me Moto 
offered a Linux based phone platform for 2 whole years and NOBODY stepped up 
for developing applications ... so Moto abandonned it switching to Windows to 
launch the Q phone.  I think it casts doubt whether the market really wanted a 
Linux platform phone.  I mean, when you offer a supported Linux product and 
nobody gives a hoot ... what would you conclude?

Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Steve Stroh 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 7:10 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] SmartPhone Happiness...



  Apparently Nokia is now out with the N800, the successor to the 770.  
  I don't have techno-lust details yet - look for yourself at http:// 
  www.nseries.com/products/n800/#l=products,n800, but friends tell me  
  it fixes the weaknesses of the 770, and is the preferred Linux  
  hacking platform (cool open source stuff coming out for it) for  
  portable Internet-connected devices.

  One of the funnier... cooler... things I've seen of late is Bluetooth  
  GPS devices. One I saw REALLY impressed me - it was deep inside a  
  restaurant, but was still able to get a fix from the windows more  
  than 20' away.


  Thanks,

  Steve


  On Jan 22, 2007, at Jan 22  10:49 AM, Travis Johnson wrote:

   Matt,
  
   It's funny you posted this message today I just picked up a new  
   test phone I am trying to replace my Treo 650. I grabbed an HP  
   iPaq 6945 from Cingular for $189 (with two year contract) and have  
   been playing with it on an off for the last couple of days.
  
   The biggest advantage to this phone is the built-in GPS, along with  
   WiFi and Bluetooth. There are some neat functions that are already  
   built-in to the main OS... such as the camera showing GPS  
   coordinates on the picture when you take it (if you enable that  
   option). Also, many commercial map programs (TomTom 6, etc.) work  
   on this phone with the GPS. With a simple car mount and car  
   adapter, you have a full-fledged GPS device built into your phone.  
   There are also programs that will connect to WiFi and update GPS  
   coordinates to a website... so you could have real-time locations  
   for your installers with no monthly fee. ;)
  
   It's running Windows Mobile 5, which is better than any other  
   Windows phone OS I have used, but still not as easy to navigate as  
   the Palm OS. The biggest feature on the Treo 650 for me is the SMS  
   messaging. It's easy to access (single button) and it keeps a chat  
   dialog going with each person you have talked to. I send and  
   receive over 100 messages per day, sometimes 200-300. It's quick,  
   easy, and can be done with one hand. If there was just a simple  
   program that would function the same, the iPaq could be a great  
   phone for me.
  
   I should also mention I purchased a Nokia 770 Internet Tablet. This  
   is a pretty cool device as well built in WiFi and Bluetooth,  
   running Linux with a nice GUI. Nice wide, bright screen too. It  
   just doesn't have a phone or GPS, just WiFi. Still pretty cool for  
   that type of a device.
  
   Travis
   Microserv


  ---

  Steve Stroh
  425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com




  -- 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] SmartPhone Happiness...

2007-01-22 Thread Rich Comroe
AFAIK Sprint and
T-Mobile do not strip any features from the phone.

Oh yeah?  Both my PPC6700s are on Sprint.  Our main SW developer uses the 2nd 
one ... he has a habit of regularly getting latest updates on all devices.  
Sprint's support site listed a new OS for download (it wasn't from a microsoft 
site -- it was from Sprint).  The PPC6700 with the Sprint downloaded OS 
Update has key elements of the dial-up networking removed.  I didn't update 
mine, and glad I didn't.  I can browse the web from my laptop over bluetooth 
thru the phone.  On the phone with the updated OS we can't do this anymore.  
It's natural that the carrier would try to remove some of the OS flexibility, 
as they want to sell a higher cost subscription for pc tethered operation.  
From their perspective it was a problem needing to be solved that Microsoft 
windows mobile 5 would permit any phone with a pc wireless interface to do this.

Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Frank 
  To: 'WISPA General List' 
  Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 11:13 PM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] SmartPhone Happiness...


  I have the T-Mobile version of this phone called the MDA. AFAIK Sprint and
  T-Mobile do not strip any features from the phone. I belive one or two of
  the other carriers do strip some features. 

  A little writeup on all the software that I use on my MDA, GPS (Franson
  GPSgate highly recommended for use with GPS), Mapping etc:
  http://snurl.com/ultimatePDA 

  I've used this phone in Europe and the mobile data worked perfectly for the
  PDA and Dial Up Networking for my laptop (with no roaming data surcharge). 

  Frank


   -Original Message-
   From: Rich Comroe
   
   Absolutely amazing how many windows phones have come out in 
   the last few months.  Just 12 months ago there were only 3 
   ... and now there's got'ta be dozens.  I love my PPC6700 so 
   much I bought a 2nd one ... EVDO / RTT1X / IS95 tri-mode, 
   bluetooth, wifi, camera, added a couple GB on mini-SD, 
   slide-out full keyboard, huge screen.  Got Microsoft VC++ 
   enterprise ... it comes with windows mobile 5 development 
   environment.  But I was disappointed at how stripped down the 
   windows mobile version of MFC was.
   
   If you can get one without the neutered OS you'll be 
   happier.  The carriers have stripped key networking 
   components of the OS to keep you from using your phone as a 
   wifi access point for nearby laptops.  I've got the original 
   fully capable OS and it's amazing what you can do.  If you 
   see a pop-up that says a newer version of OS is available, 
   click here ... DON'T!!!  It's a neutered version from your 
   carrier (not from Microsoft) which removes specific dial-up 
   networking components to limit your abilities.

  -- 
  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] churn, double play and why WLP is key - I finally understand it

2007-01-08 Thread Rich Comroe
Patrick, I agree with your engineer's description.  But I'd argue the use of 
the word prioritization is incorrectly applied to Canopy.  Canopy doesn't 
prioritize VoIP.  Priority schemes infer media access preference.  Canopy's 
separate pre-allocated partitions have nothing to do with prioritization as 
VoIP and general traffic do not compete for a common partition (they each have 
their own).

VL uses prioritization (and uses the term correctly), as VoIP is given priority 
access (most likely by permitting access with a shorter time gap following 
other transmissions than general data ... thus VoIP grabs the media first).  If 
VL claims to be the first to implement a VoIP priority it only depends whether 
anyone else has implemented a true priority scheme already.  Canopy's is not a 
priority scheme in any sense of the term.  Prioritization has the clear 
advantage (no pun intended).  Canopy essentially divides the rf into 
subchannels which loses the ability to dynamically use the channel for 
in-vs-out, VoIP-vs-general, etc.  As the 3rd party testing described, the VoIP 
call volume cited could only be achieved in a VoIP-only configuration.  A true 
prioritization mechanism (such as embodied in VL) is far superior to 
pre-allocated partitions in so, so many ways.

Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Patrick Leary 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 6:57 PM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] churn,double play and why WLP is key - I finally 
understand it


  Gino,

  After you informed me of the way prioritization occurs in your solution,
  I asked one of our sharp engineers to articulate the differences to me.
  Here was his reply back and I'd be interested in your feedback:

  
  The [prioritization mechanism in the] __ system is different than VL
  in the way it is deployed and the way it will deploy a priority network.
  With VL the bandwidth for the sector is totally dynamic, any direction
  demand can utilize the entire capacity of the base station.  __
  pre-defines the amount up and down to the sector.  Their implementation
  of the prioritization is stated for DSCP only where we can do it also
  for ToS.  I am not sure if that is unique but keep it in the back of
  your head.  

  Our WLP is also dynamic; where he stated that you specify the amount of
  bandwidth for the priority channel, our can/will fluctuate every
  microsecond during the communication.  This will also happen
  independently in each direction.  Because there is a potential for over
  subscription of prioritized traffic, VL also has an option to set aside
  some bandwidth for best effort traffic incase the provider creates too
  much prioritized traffic.  This prevents the FTP from a customer from
  breaking during the high priority traffic times.  
  

  Make sense?

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

  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini
  Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:24 PM
  To: 'WISPA General List'
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] churn,double play and why WLP is key - I finally
  understand it

  Back home...ahhh to bad when it ends...

  Frankly , I don't know ... maybe has to due with the TDD system, next
  firmware release should improve overall pps capacity

  Gino A. Villarini
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
  tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Patrick Leary
  Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 2:03 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] churn,double play and why WLP is key - I finally
  understand it

  It does sound like a similar smart mechanism Gino -- I stand corrected.
  If this is who I assume it is though, then why do they report such low
  VoIP performance per SM and per AP? ...but don't answer any of this
  until after you leave Vail. Better that you should just enjoy your
  vacation. Sounds great.

  Patrick

  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini
  Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 9:37 AM
  To: 'WISPA General List'
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] churn,double play and why WLP is key - I finally
  understand it

  Well, I haven't replied to this earlier cause Im on vacation (skiing @
  Vail
  ) but now, let me add  some info...

  I don't want to get involved in a gear fight, but a brand x gear has a
  Per
  Sector prioritization of traffic. It works like this:

  You set the cpe to identify the traffic to be prioritized using
  Diffserv, (
  it can be any type of traffic not just voip)

  Then you activate on the cpe the high priority channel option

  Set how much bandwidth this high priority channel would use

  And you are done,

  The Sector AP identifies all the cpes on the sector using this feature
  and
 

Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

2006-12-29 Thread Rich Comroe
I worked for a manufacturer that certified product with the FCC.  The legality 
issue for FCC type acceptance can be argued in certain circumstances.  Truth 
is, we didn't re-apply for FCC type acceptance every time we changed a resistor 
value or made some board change or modified the software.  It's arguable that 
the need for FCC type acceptance is only required when a change in the product 
alters the rf modulation.  When it was clear to us that it did, we'd re-apply 
for FCC type acceptance.

If someone puts an FCC type accepted radio card into box with a single board 
computer combined with some OS on the SBC, I'm not sure there's any legality 
issue as far as the FCC is concerned.  I think the question is whether there's 
anything in the SBC  external software that's changed the rf characteristics 
of the radio card that's already been FCC type accepted.  If not ... why is it 
illegal?

Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Tom DeReggi 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 9:44 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...


  Lonnie,

  Patrick has a valid point. Truthfully, its getting close to that time that 
  there isn't a reason not to get certified.
  The 533 Gateworks boards, atheros chipset cards, are getting to be pretty 
  standard products, with consistent availabilty, that meet just about any 
  need.
  Thats much different than 2 years ago, when who knew what hardware would be 
  used daily.
  Why not get them certified with the Rootenna product, and then use the new 
  FCC relaxed equivellent antenna rules, to list additional equivellent 
  antenna?
  I bet you could even get the cost covered by your buyers, if you took up a 
  collection.

  Tom DeReggi
  RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
  IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 1:01 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...


   Patrick,
  
   This is simply the LOWEST blow I have EVER seen you throw.  You have
   always been an Evangelist and I have seen you come and go from several
   lists, while me and my people have survived legal blind sides and we
   have outlived several LARGER companies.
  
   Yep, pretty low.  Plus it did not answer the question.  I feel I
   cannot jump in since I am too close to the product and thus might be
   seen as self serving.  What is your excuse?
  
  
   Lonnie
  
  
   On 12/28/06, Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mean, besides simply being illegal, such a vendor has
   no quality controls, they can also just up and walk away from you and
   quit anytime, they have no accountability, and it throws away your
   investment from an equity standpoint.
  
  
   Patrick Leary
   AVP WISP Markets
   Alvarion, Inc.
   o: 650.314.2628
   c: 760.580.0080
   Vonage: 650.641.1243
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
   -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
   Behalf Of Butch Evans
   Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:00 PM
   To: WISPA General List
   Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
  
   On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Patrick Leary wrote:
  
   Why not stick with Tranzeo or one of the other legal
   (FCC-certified) brands?
  
   Good idea, Patrick, but it doesn't answer the question that was
   asked.
  
   --
   Butch Evans
   Network Engineering and Security Consulting
   573-276-2879
   http://www.butchevans.com/
   Mikrotik Certified Consultant
   (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html)
   --
   WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
  
   Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
   http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
  
   Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
  
  
  
   
   
   This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
   PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
   computer viruses(190).
   
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
   
   This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
   PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
   computer viruses(43).
   
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   

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

  
  
  
   --
   WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
  
   

Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...

2006-12-29 Thread Rich Comroe
Well said.  You've covered issues in deploying your FCC certified radio product 
with various pre-approved antennas.

Now, when it comes to selling a box with a computer and radio in it, the 
questions are a bit different.  If it's a radio integrated onto a computer 
board, my belief it that it's got to be FCC accepted, certified, and bear the 
FCC ID, FCC certified label, and of course the This device complies with Part 
15 of FCC Rules ... blah, blah, blah.  If you're having a board manufactured 
with the 802.11a chips on it, I think you've got to get tested  certified.

On the other hand, if you're integrating an SBC with a radio card manufactured 
by another vendor who has already certified the card (it has the FCC ID, FCC 
certified logo, the Part 15 compliance) then I'm at a loss as to why this is 
not completely legal.  You're not a manufacturer ... you're an integrator.  I 
can't see why you'd need to re-test and certified a box with a radio that 
already bears the FCC certification.  If you need to re-certify, then BestBuy'd 
need to certify to sell you a PC with the LAN card installed, CompUSA'd need to 
certify, etc.

But if you integrate a certified radio, and reflash its code in a way that 
modifies its modulation behavior, then you've become a radio manufacturer ... 
and you need to actually go through a complete FCC type acceptance testing.  
However, in my opinion it's got to be modified at layer 1 (physical layer) to 
require this.  Changing the Media Access Control (layer 2) or above is just not 
grounds to require re-certification IMHO.

Disclaimer:  I am not a lawyer, nor have ever played a lawyer on TV.  I am 
actually not qualified to comment on the topics I have just commented on!  :-)  
They are just my ignorant opinions, and I'd greatly appreciate anyone who could 
kick some sense into me should I be all wet.

Peace,
Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 12:03 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...


  OK, lets be clear on what the rules are today guys.  (Why did I know that 
  THIS thread was gonna turn out to be a ton of fun (said the pot to the 
  kettle))

  Here's how it works.  If you have a AP out there it can have a MAX output of 
  4 watts.  36dB.  That holds true for 900, 2.4 and 5.8 bands.  I forget what 
  the strange 5.7 unii band rules are but I think they are 4 watt also, at the 
  ap.

  The 5.2 (some call it the 5.3) gig band has a 1 watt limit.

  As for antenna choices, you can use any antenna of the SAME type as long as 
  it's of equal or lower gain AND the same type.  If you are using an ap radio 
  (doesn't matter if it's in a tranzeo box, war board or mt or whatever 
  anymore) certified with a 15 dB vpol omni then you can use any vpol omni of 
  similar in and out of band specs that's 15 dB or less.  Want to run a 15 dB 
  hpol omni?  Nope, gotta go get it certified with that (I could be wrong on 
  this one but I don't think so).  Certainly if you want to put a sector on, 
  so sorry, no can do.  Unless that is, it's certified with *A* sector.

  Here's the really fun part.  Under the NEW rules (from a year or two ago) if 
  you want to run an amp it has to be a part of a COMPLETE system.  AND the 
  devices have to be keyed to each other.  Meaning that the ap and the amp 
  have to have unique connectors or be electronically keyed to each other. 
  Thanks Michael Young formerly of YDI.

  On the cpe side things get even more fun. I'm only gonna talk about ISM 
  rules as I keep forgetting exactly what the UNII rules are and few mix and 
  match in the UNII band anyway.

  900 mhz
  4 watts max.  You can use any antenna you want as long as it's of the same 
  type (grid, yagi, panel) and similar specs as the LARGEST one certified with 
  the radio.  If they certified a 20 dB yagi, you can use almost any yagi 
  that's 20dB or less.  If they certified no yagis you can't use one.

  2.4 ghz
  Starts at 4 watts.  30 dB of radio output and 6dB of antenna gain.  For ever 
  dB you reduce the radio output you can raise the antenna gain by 3dB.  At 24 
  dB of radio output (250mw) you can put on a 24dB grid.  This gives you a 
  total of 60 watts of output.  Same rules apply though.  If the radio isn't 
  certified with a grid antenna or with one that's less than 24 dB you can't 
  do this.  Make sure that your radio manufacturers are certifying everything 
  with the LARGEST antenna of all common types!  If they aren't certified 
  with anything but a consumer grade rubber ducky, we can't legally use the 
  radios.

  5.8 ghz
  Starts with 4 watts.  30dB of radio output and 6 dB of antenna gain.  Go as 
  big as you want with the antennas, no need to drop the radio power.  Same 
  other rules about certification apply.

  Is my network perfect?  Nope.  Is it all within eirp limits?  You bet. 
  Well, I've got one sector that used 

Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived - regardinginterference - Part 1

2006-12-28 Thread Rich Comroe
Good stuff.  In the order presented, the text makes some statements about RX 
threshold damping.

It is a powerful tool for a higher
modulation radio operating in a noisy environment, as it allows the radio to
block out and ignore signals received below the preset RF Rx Threshold.

 By creating an artificial receiver threshold below which no RF signals are
processed, the Receiver Threshold Dampening allows for the rejection of
distance interferences and reduces co-location interference at the expense
of a reduced coverage radius.

The text above immediately follows the excellent section on C/I.  Presenting in 
this order I felt the text might somehow imply that by setting the threshold 
higher than the interfering signals, that the receiver can ignore the 
interference (it says this in so many words).  If we're talking about the 
Carrier-to-Interference required above the surrounding interference it's giving 
you the wrong impression.  That would be incorrect, and since it immediately 
followed the section on C/I I thought I could improve a bit here.  You still 
need every inch of the required C/I above the interference.  All that is being 
ignored is the receiver's energy detection (and whatever impact it may cause in 
the MAC's channel access algorithm) from reacting to receive energy below the 
threshold.  The interference energy is still there, and additive with desired 
received signal.  Another way of looking at this is that you need the same 
margin above the receiver noise threshold as you need above the interference 
(you still need both SNR and C/I).

In my book this is not interference rejection at all.  You need the same amount 
of required SNR above sensitivity and C/I above interference, but the technique 
can be useful in masking far-away weaker signals from screwing up your channel 
access if you were using something like CSMA.

Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Charles Wu 
  To: 'WISPA General List' 
  Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 3:47 PM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived - 
regardinginterference - Part 1


  I go to see Mickey Mouse for a few days and look where this thread has
  gone...wow

  So, my 2 cents...

  One of the largest concerns in the license-exempt world is the question of a
  system's interference robustness.  However, before we can get into further
  detail on the pros and cons of Alvarion VL vs Canopy, CSMA/CA vs GPS, etc --
  it is necessary to realize that interference as a term is extremely broad
  and vague, and can mean just about anything to anyone.  Heck, all radios in
  the market have some sort of interference robustness / avoidance
  capability -- the trick to understanding a system's capabilities is knowing
  what TYPE of interference the system can actually handle.  Read on...I'll
  talk more about each particular platform when I get some time to write Part
  2 =)



  WHAT IS INTERERENCE?

  In the wireless world, interference, by definition, is a situation where
  unwanted radio signals operate in the same frequency channels or bands -
  i.e. they mutually interfere, disrupt or add to the overall noise level in
  the intended transmission.

  Interference can be divided into two forms, based on whether it comes from
  your own network(s) or from an outside source.  If the interfering RF
  signals emanate from a network under your control, whether it is on the same
  tower or several miles away, it is termed self-interference.  If the
  opposing signals come from a network, device or other source that is not
  under your control, it is termed outside interference.  Thus, the
  definition of what type of interference is being combated is not based on
  technology, but ownership.

  In licensed bands, where spectrum is relatively scarce (due to high costs)
  self-interference alone must be taken into account; however given a more or
  less known operating environment (the radio spectrum will only have signals
  transmitting that are under control by a single entity) proper product
  design and network deployment can reduce these interferes to a level where
  they do not impact network performance.

  Self-interference is not a phenomenon that is confined to licensed band
  operations; license-exempt bands must address the same issues.  The
  techniques and design elements of a given product that serve to reduce and
  tame self-interference in licensed band operations can be applied directly
  to license-exempt systems. 

  THE LICENSE-EXEMPT CHALLENGE OF INTERFERENCE

  In the license-exempt bands, not only must self-interference be accounted
  for, but, given the nature of the regulations governing these bands,
  external interference must be designed for as well.  This can be extremely
  challenging, as there is no way of knowing in advance where these outside
  signals may be or will be sourced from, or even how strong the interfering
  transmissions will be relative to the desired transmission.  This aspect of
  

Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

2006-12-28 Thread Rich Comroe
Canopy's C/I of 3dB is only the 10mbps at signals much stronger than 
sensitivity.  At low signal it's always been higher than 3dB, and the 20mbps 
Canopy requires higher C/I under all circumstances.

OFDM provides a range of signalling speeds, from BPSK (same C/I as the 10mbps 
Canopy) through large constellation QAMs (with correspondingly higher C/Is).  
OFDM will work in as little signal as 10mbps Canopy, and can operate with less 
signal than 20mbps Canopy.  And as you already expressed, with 17-25 dB or 
more, it runs much faster.

But you also neglect that with OFDM's multiple subchannels, it can tolerate 
partial band interference whereas the DSSS system would just stop cold.

Aside from the above, I perceive you seem to appreciate the value of time 
framed systems.  I sometimes get wrong who is advocating what in email 
threads, so I appologize in advance if I've got this wrong.  I'm a great fan of 
time framed systems myself.

It would be interesting to see how a bare OFDM TDD system 
would have performed?

I think you'll get your wish.  Isn't this what WiMAX is?

Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Tom DeReggi 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 4:56 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived


  Marlon,

  You get an A+ on your definitions of terms I used. I don't challenge those 
  definitions.
  However, I challenge the relevance of just about all your responses to my 
  comments.
  I recognize I may not have been super clear, but I was assuming the reader 
  would apply their knowledge of the definitions, to infer the relevance of 
  comments made.

  To be more clear

  OFDM is plagued by a larger SNR to operate adequately, compared to DSSS.
  DSSS has been able to operate with minimum SNRs anywhere from 3db (canopy) 
  to 8db (trango).
  Actually that comment is not exactly true, Canopy's C/I is 3db (not minimum 
  SNR required).
  OFDM gear typically wants to see a minimum of 17db SNR, and performs 
  optimally with  25db SNR.
  I'm not aware that Wifi gear has worse C/I specs than non-Wifi gear, based 
  on it being Wifi (csma/ca).
  Wifi or TDD has nothing to do with Noise, Wifi  TDD has to do with timing 
  of transmissions.

  My point was that if you can't get over the noise, when using modulations 
  less able to get over the noise, you can help solve the problem by 
  transmitting when the noise is not occuring.
  Contant time based transmission has little benefit, if it occurs during a 
  noisy time where that noise will kill the signal and results in packet loss. 
  I'd rather have increased latency, and try again, to prevent packet loss.

   I've always been a fan of TDD, especially when combined with DSSS to be 
   able to survive the noise, with better SNRs

   Meant... DSSS gets over noise better than OFDM, and I like TDD gear when 
  the gear can survive the noise floor, and DSSS gear is more likely to 
  survive the noise floor, and well matched with TDD.

  If using OFDM, requiring larger SNR, harder to accomplish in high noise 
  environements, a non-TDD based scheduling MAC such as CSMA/CA can improve 
  overall end to end performance and reduce packet loss.

  A lost packet, end to end across a session, takes up WAY more bandwdith and 
  has a penalty of WAY more LAtency, than hiding the packet loss from the 
  session, and re-transmitting the loss at the specific link that the packet 
  loss occured.

  The point I am making is that so many people judge performance by Link 
  performance, which means nothing in terms of the performance that the end 
  user experiences end to end.  End USer Performance is about preventing and 
  minimizing packet loss.

  A perfect exmaple was a link that I had to rebuild today.  I tried to pull 
  off a ofdm 900 Mhz link. I have a registered noise floor of -85, and an 
  average signal of -55, but I had to pull out the link, because end to end, 
  the best I could accomplish was 5-10% packet loss. The reason is that 
  sporatic paging noise peaked loud enough to interfere with my signal 
  (although not seen with cheap limited wifi built-in noise detection).  I was 
  able to do a radio to radio throughout test of almost 10 mbps.  But thats 
  not what the end user saw, trying to type in his remote office application. 
  More like 30 seconds to see his characters show up on the screen after he 
  typed them.  But web browsing appeared OK. This particular case it 
  demonstrates the harm of packet loss, allthough limited in relevance as it 
  was a OFDM CSMA/CA link.   Trango 900 DSSS w/ nosie compression built-in and 
  ARQ, would have likely solved the problem.  But thats because of DSSS's 
  noise resilience, Trango compression (noise filtering) and ARQ, not because 
  of its TDD spec.   It would be interesting to see how a bare OFDM TDD system 
  would have performed? I can test it, because one doesn't exist, atleast not 
  that I own.  But I bet it would perform pretty 

Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived-regardinginterference - Part 1

2006-12-28 Thread Rich Comroe
Again, I think they're already being made, aren't they? for 3.5GHz.  Doesn't 
have to be final WiMAX ... I presume that all the pre-WiMAX products are OFDM 
and TDD.  I've yet to hear of one at 900, 2.4, or 5.  Anyone?  Am I all wet on 
what the pre-WiMAX products are?  I could very well be all wet, as I am only 
talking from what I've picked up from reading here ... and I've not had any 
first-hand experience with real available pre-WiMAX gear that's out there.  
Alvarion's got pre-WiMAX gear ... maybe Patrick can confirm, or alternatively 
slap me back to reality!   :-)

Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Brad Belton 
  To: 'WISPA General List' 
  Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:16 PM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have 
arrived-regardinginterference - Part 1


  lol...gotta love it!  I'd argue it doesn't have to be only $300 to sell.
  I'd pay two or three times that for such a product.  

  But honestly that isn't that much to ask as many products are already so
  close...Alvarion VL being one of the closest, but still no cigar.  

  I like what you said about developing Trango products and agree they are way
  past due to leapfrog back to the front of the pack.  Oh those were the
  days when Sunstream/Trango was the undisputed leader with the début of the
  M5800 and then the M5830.  sigh  Maybe they can do it again!

  Best,


  Brad





  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
  Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:05 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
  -regardinginterference - Part 1

  Charles,

  WOW! Great Post! That covers about everything.

  It increases the understanding of the complexity, but it doesn't answer the 
  ultimate question, What to use.

  What we really want is an efficient OFDM system, with a strong TDD w/ARQ 
  MAC, RFThreshold, Good Noise Filtering, Packet aggregating/compressing, 
  adeqaute CPU processing, Quality narrow beam diversity antennas, all 
  pre-packaged in a system/box under $300.  But that product does not exist 
  today.

  So why doesn't a manufacturer just make it, so we can stop debating what is 
  best, and just deploy radios!

  Tom DeReggi
  RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
  IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 4:47 PM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived - 
  regardinginterference - Part 1


  I go to see Mickey Mouse for a few days and look where this thread has
  gone...wow

  So, my 2 cents...

  One of the largest concerns in the license-exempt world is the question of a
  system's interference robustness.  However, before we can get into further
  detail on the pros and cons of Alvarion VL vs Canopy, CSMA/CA vs GPS, etc --
  it is necessary to realize that interference as a term is extremely broad
  and vague, and can mean just about anything to anyone.  Heck, all radios in
  the market have some sort of interference robustness / avoidance
  capability -- the trick to understanding a system's capabilities is knowing
  what TYPE of interference the system can actually handle.  Read on...I'll
  talk more about each particular platform when I get some time to write Part
  2 =)



  WHAT IS INTERERENCE?

  In the wireless world, interference, by definition, is a situation where
  unwanted radio signals operate in the same frequency channels or bands -
  i.e. they mutually interfere, disrupt or add to the overall noise level in
  the intended transmission.

  Interference can be divided into two forms, based on whether it comes from
  your own network(s) or from an outside source.  If the interfering RF
  signals emanate from a network under your control, whether it is on the same
  tower or several miles away, it is termed self-interference.  If the
  opposing signals come from a network, device or other source that is not
  under your control, it is termed outside interference.  Thus, the
  definition of what type of interference is being combated is not based on
  technology, but ownership.

  In licensed bands, where spectrum is relatively scarce (due to high costs)
  self-interference alone must be taken into account; however given a more or
  less known operating environment (the radio spectrum will only have signals
  transmitting that are under control by a single entity) proper product
  design and network deployment can reduce these interferes to a level where
  they do not impact network performance.

  Self-interference is not a phenomenon that is confined to licensed band
  operations; license-exempt bands must address the same issues.  The
  techniques and design elements of a given product that serve to reduce and
  tame self-interference in licensed band operations can be applied directly
  to license-exempt systems.

  THE 

Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios havearrived-regardinginterference- Part 1

2006-12-28 Thread Rich Comroe
Thanks for the info, Patrick.  I sure hope these systems have all the 
attributes that Tom  Brad were describing, and they're real and can be 
evaluated live now.  I presume they have OFDM and TDD.  Can anyone comment if 
they have everything in Brad's wish list?

What we really want is an efficient OFDM system, with a strong TDD w/ARQ 
  MAC, RFThreshold, Good Noise Filtering, Packet aggregating/compressing, 
  adeqaute CPU processing, Quality narrow beam diversity antennas, all 
  pre-packaged in a system/box under $300.  But that product does not exist 
  today.

  So why doesn't a manufacturer just make it, so we can stop debating what is 
  best, and just deploy radios!

As Patrick says, they're available ... try'em out.  Doubt they're $300, but I 
think Tom commented that such a radio would be worth more than $300 to him.  If 
anyone has trialed them can they comment to the list?

But honestly that isn't that much to ask as many products are already so
  close...Alvarion VL being one of the closest, but still no cigar.

Don't know what this meant, as it's real Alvarion WiMAX product that Patrick is 
describing.  I'm sure there's other brands also available now as well.  Maybe 
it meant no product like it yet available in UL 900 / 2.4 / 5??? Dunno.  A 
little help please?

Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Patrick Leary 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:34 PM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios 
havearrived-regardinginterference- Part 1


  Alvarion's got actual WiMAX gear Rich. Our WiMAX-certified BreezeMAX 3500 is 
being deployed in over 100 commercial networks along with about 120 trials. In 
the U.S. we are selling and deploying early BreezeMAX 2500 and BreezeMAX 2300 
to a handful of operators. These are TDD 802.16e-ready solutions and they will 
be certified when the WiMAX Forum opens up .16e certification testing.

  Some call BreezeACCESS pre-WiMAX, but that is only true to the extent that it 
uses OFDM and has a host of other features that some might call WiMAX-like. I 
am personally not fond of pre/like/kinda, etc. UNLESS the system is real WiMAX 
and just awaits the certification process, such as is the case with BreezeMAX 
2300 and BreezeMAX 2500. BreezeMAX 3500 is already certified. Anything called 
BreezeMAX was designed from the ground up to support WiMAX profiles and will 
ultimately be WiMAX-certified. Anything in our line NOT called BreezeMAX will 
not ever be WiMAX-certified.
   
  Patrick Leary
  AVP WISP Markets
  Alvarion, Inc.
  o: 650.314.2628
  c: 760.580.0080
  Vonage: 650.641.1243
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Comroe
  Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 5:31 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have 
arrived-regardinginterference- Part 1

  Again, I think they're already being made, aren't they? for 3.5GHz.  Doesn't 
have to be final WiMAX ... I presume that all the pre-WiMAX products are OFDM 
and TDD.  I've yet to hear of one at 900, 2.4, or 5.  Anyone?  Am I all wet on 
what the pre-WiMAX products are?  I could very well be all wet, as I am only 
talking from what I've picked up from reading here ... and I've not had any 
first-hand experience with real available pre-WiMAX gear that's out there.  
Alvarion's got pre-WiMAX gear ... maybe Patrick can confirm, or alternatively 
slap me back to reality!   :-)

  Rich
- Original Message - 
From: Brad Belton 
To: 'WISPA General List' 
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:16 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have 
arrived-regardinginterference - Part 1


lol...gotta love it!  I'd argue it doesn't have to be only $300 to sell.
I'd pay two or three times that for such a product.  

But honestly that isn't that much to ask as many products are already so
close...Alvarion VL being one of the closest, but still no cigar.  

I like what you said about developing Trango products and agree they are way
past due to leapfrog back to the front of the pack.  Oh those were the
days when Sunstream/Trango was the undisputed leader with the début of the
M5800 and then the M5830.  sigh  Maybe they can do it again!

Best,


Brad





-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:05 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
-regardinginterference - Part 1

Charles,

WOW! Great Post! That covers about everything.

It increases the understanding of the complexity, but it doesn't answer the 
ultimate question, What to use.

What we really want is an efficient OFDM system, with a strong TDD w/ARQ 
MAC, RFThreshold, Good Noise Filtering, Packet aggregating/compressing, 
adeqaute CPU processing, Quality narrow beam

Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

2006-12-28 Thread Rich Comroe
Can't argue with a manufacturer actually participating heavily in the WiMAX 
process. But I respectfully disagree here a bit.

Fact is,
it ain't ready because UL WiMAX ain't ready.

IMHO It ain't ready because licensed MMDS replacement was the original 802.16 
plan.  Thoughts of UL had been introduced fairly late in the game.

Anyone that buys it before
the issues are fixed is going to be very sorry.

Anyone manufacturer who builds an UL solution which is WiMAX like pre-standard 
is no worse than with any other proprietary solution ... except that there is 
always hope of a firmware upgrade to standard at some future date if the 
hardware is WiMAX.  I dunno ... I think the reason there is no UL WiMAX like 
standard is because Europe dropped the ball with HyperLAN2.  It was 
standardized years ago by ETSI, it was UL 5GHz targetted (RLAN bands), but the 
involved carriers and manufacturers all nearly bankrupted themselves over 3G 
development  licensing.  (Maybe, maybe not)  For whatever reason it unraveled 
and IEEE 802.16 originally didn't had UL as a primary target (licensed MMDS 
replacement IIRC).

Didn't any European manufacturer field any HyperLAN2 products (or prototypes) 
which could be trialed in US 5GHz UNII band?  Sigh...

Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Patrick Leary 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:41 PM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived


  Lots of myth around WiMAX unlicensed. I've posted about it many times
  and spoke about it many more, but people still continue to believe the
  myths. FOLKS, get it through your heads that WiMAX in unlicensed has
  lots of challenges until they can solve the problem of the .16 MAC in UL
  bands. 

  I know some of you will say, gee, maybe because Alvarion might not have
  UL WIMAX before others, but if you really dig in the data, use your head
  and really think you'll get it. Plus, remember that we essentially
  INVENTED this stuff folks, us and tiny handful of others. We've been
  selling 802.16 PMP in scale since summer 2004. We today have well over
  50% of all WiMAX base stations and clients sold into the market. You
  have to understand that if UL WiMAX was the holy grail we'd have
  introduced it long ago when others were trying to spell WiMAX. Fact is,
  it ain't ready because UL WiMAX ain't ready. Anyone that buys it before
  the issues are fixed is going to be very sorry.

  I don't know how more blunt I can be. (Tom, you listening?)

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

  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
  Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:05 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

  I think you'll get your wish.  Isn't this what WiMAX is?

  Yes, but don;t predict we'll see a 900Mhz verion any time soon.
  But 5.8G, yes, I think it will be first half 2007.

  Tom DeReggi
  RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
  IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:23 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived


  Canopy's C/I of 3dB is only the 10mbps at signals much stronger than 
  sensitivity.  At low signal it's always been higher than 3dB, and the
  20mbps 
  Canopy requires higher C/I under all circumstances.

  OFDM provides a range of signalling speeds, from BPSK (same C/I as the 
  10mbps Canopy) through large constellation QAMs (with correspondingly
  higher 
  C/Is).  OFDM will work in as little signal as 10mbps Canopy, and can
  operate 
  with less signal than 20mbps Canopy.  And as you already expressed, with

  17-25 dB or more, it runs much faster.

  But you also neglect that with OFDM's multiple subchannels, it can
  tolerate 
  partial band interference whereas the DSSS system would just stop cold.

  Aside from the above, I perceive you seem to appreciate the value of
  time 
  framed systems.  I sometimes get wrong who is advocating what in email

  threads, so I appologize in advance if I've got this wrong.  I'm a great
  fan 
  of time framed systems myself.

  It would be interesting to see how a bare OFDM TDD system
  would have performed?

  I think you'll get your wish.  Isn't this what WiMAX is?

  Rich
- Original Message - 
From: Tom DeReggi
To: WISPA General List
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived


Marlon,

You get an A+ on your definitions of terms I used. I don't challenge
  those
definitions.
However, I challenge the relevance of just about all your responses to
  my
comments.
I recognize I may not have been super clear, but I was assuming the
  reader
would apply

Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

2006-12-28 Thread Rich Comroe
Where's the disagreement Rich. I said the WiMAX MAC was not ready for UL

I hear you.  My disagreement is that a UL wisp standard SHOULD have been ready 
YEARS ago.

HiperMAN is different than HiperLAN/2 (I incorrectly called it HyperLAN2 in the 
previous posts).  You say the spec for UL WiMAX is not done yet.  In a few days 
it'll be 2007.  The spec for HiperLAN/2 was completed back in 2000 ... that's 7 
years ago!  5 years ago there were prototype HiperLAN/2 products produced by 
Mitsubishi, NTT/Panasonic, Sharp, Sony, Stepmind, Theta and Thomson.  Then ... 
something happened.  802.11a was shipping in the US, the 802.11h standard was 
adopted (adding DFS and TPC required for European acceptance), and the 
HiperLAN/2 coalition seemed to evaporate overnite.

Apparently nobody considered the US UL wisp market as a viable candidate to 
sell the Hiperlan/2 products completed back in 2002, and I can't find any 
record of products ever being offered here.  I can understand it, as it was 
driven by all large manufacturers anticipating the wireless LAN market volumes 
(which UL wisps can't come close to in collective volume).  It's kind of funny 
that no wisp manufacturer offered any US HiperLAN/2 like products, while 
Motorola's Canopy was actually architecturally very similar to HiperLAN/2 
(except for the non-OFDM layer1).

Again, in a few days it'll be 2007 and they're still arguing over an UL WiMAX 
standard?  Why not try the HiperLAN/2 standard completed long ago?  Why?  
Because the standards participants are committed to licensed WiMAX 
manufacturing and are looking for a new UL standard with high commonality with 
licensed WiMAX / mobile WiMAX.  It's a business decision to maximize return on 
their collective WiMAX chip investments.  Unfortunately there's no UL wisp 
business coalition with sufficient standing to drive manufacturers for what UL 
wisps need ... (yet).

Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Patrick Leary 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:53 PM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived


  Where's the disagreement Rich. I said the WiMAX MAC was not ready for
  UL. I did not say in detail why (at least not in this post). For sure it
  is because the MAC was developed for licensed (LMDS actually) -- that's
  my point. It was never conceived of for UL. 
  ---
  Also, there IS a WiMAX UL standard -- the profile has been in place for
  over a year. There just is not equipment and there has been no UL
  certification yet. http://www.wimaxforum.org/kshowcase/view  The reason
  has nothing to do with Europe (Alvarion's Mariana Goldhamer led the
  harmonization between ETSI HiperMAN and IEEE 802.16 several years ago).
  The main vendors in the Forum (the ones that really drive things) all
  know the deal with UL and they are in no rush to deliver WiMAX in it's
  current form onto the U.S. market. Also, the existing UL WiMAX profile
  is for 802.16d-2004. The whole of the Forum is focusing on 802.16e-2005,
  in fact, the entire WiMAX ecosystem you hear about it all relative to
  802.16e-2005. Migrations from .16d-2005 to .16e-2005 are not software
  type changes. All that combined with the non-UL MAC = folks will be
  sorry for sinking CAPEX into certain UL WiMAX. Buyer beware and know
  the deal.

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

  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Rich Comroe
  Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 7:28 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

  Can't argue with a manufacturer actually participating heavily in the
  WiMAX process. But I respectfully disagree here a bit.

  Fact is,
  it ain't ready because UL WiMAX ain't ready.

  IMHO It ain't ready because licensed MMDS replacement was the original
  802.16 plan.  Thoughts of UL had been introduced fairly late in the
  game.

  Anyone that buys it before
  the issues are fixed is going to be very sorry.

  Anyone manufacturer who builds an UL solution which is WiMAX like
  pre-standard is no worse than with any other proprietary solution ...
  except that there is always hope of a firmware upgrade to standard at
  some future date if the hardware is WiMAX.  I dunno ... I think the
  reason there is no UL WiMAX like standard is because Europe dropped the
  ball with HyperLAN2.  It was standardized years ago by ETSI, it was UL
  5GHz targetted (RLAN bands), but the involved carriers and manufacturers
  all nearly bankrupted themselves over 3G development  licensing.
  (Maybe, maybe not)  For whatever reason it unraveled and IEEE 802.16
  originally didn't had UL as a primary target (licensed MMDS replacement
  IIRC).

  Didn't any European manufacturer field any HyperLAN2 products (or
  prototypes) which could be trialed in US 5GHz UNII band?  Sigh...

  Rich
- Original

Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

2006-12-27 Thread Rich Comroe
There's no unlicensed product which guarantees business class services in 
interference.  To suggest product A does and product B doesn't is nonsense.  I 
think you've done a good job of describing why you think some products do a 
better job of than others.  That's fair.  Sharing experiences where one product 
did better than another is fair.  I love reading your posts and others 
comparing the attributes which impact on this.  It's educational and I get 
insights into equipment that I haven't personally had direct experience.  But 
the constant bashing that some product will guarantee business class services 
in interference and another won't is tiresome, and just turns people off from 
the good content that people appreciate.

Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Brad Belton 
  To: 'WISPA General List' 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 7:26 PM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived


  Certainly you can do committed rate business class services with unlicensed
  products.  WMUX, Terabridge, Trango just to name a few.  Are they
  interchangeable in application?  Nope, they require you use the right
  product for the job at hand.  What may work well on one project may not on
  the next.

  Interference typically isn't temporary...at least not around these parts!
  No, you need to engineer the link with enough forethought and available
  tools on hand to give yourself options in the event a link does begin to
  incur interference.

  In our experience the VL was erratic in its ability to consistently produce
  the same end result day in and day out.  Alvarion, me and the third party
  client all knew before hand the site was very RF unfriendly.  I visited the
  site personally to run surveys before any gear was deployed.  We spent the
  better part of a month with Alvarion trying to get the VL to produce a
  consistent level of throughput at any level without success.  Just as I
  began to believe we had it licked we would get another call from the client.
  The really frustrating part of all this is the throughput would vary
  depending on just how busy the other gear in the area was.  The busiest
  times of day is when we realized the link really suffered.

  I felt obligated to share our VL results here because Marlon indicated he
  was looking for a business class product.  VL is not that...at least not in
  our book.

  Best,


  Brad



  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Rich Comroe
  Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 5:35 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

  Products that are best effort [snip product name]
  end up making guys like us look bad.

  I'm confused how can anyone do better than best effort in unlicensed
  spectrum, regardless of manufacturer?

  There is nothing worse than installing one day at 6Mbps and the next day
  getting a call saying they are getting something less than that.

  If you have no allowance for even temporary interference, what short of a
  licensed channel can accomplish that?

  Rich
- Original Message - 
From: Brad Belton 
To: 'WISPA General List' 
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 5:17 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived


If we are in an environment where ANY particular solution will not produce
the results we are after then we look at other products.  We will not tie
our hands to one brand.  No reason to.

Our business model is different than the next and so on and so on.  Yes,
  CIR
is what we sell not MIR.  That may be a good thing for us or it may turn
  out
to be a bad thing for us, but that is the level of service we strive to
deliver.  

Products that are best effort like VL end up making guys like us look bad.
There is nothing worse than installing one day at 6Mbps and the next day
getting a call saying they are getting something less than that.

Expectations and end results are everything to us.  We meet expectations
  or
we'd rather not do it, part ways amiability and maintain our reputation.
It's a small town!  

Best,


Brad



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 2:57 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

The Alvarion VL is great for bursty, best effort requirements where 90%
  of
the user applications can wait for that clear air within the noise floor,
but not for committed rate business class service.

Agreed.  But what about when you are in an environment that TDD won't work

well? Sometimes the answer is to modify your offering to what the beset 
thing is that can be delivered.
CIR service may need to be changed to MIR. In what cases is CIR really 
needed? And what areas of your business or network

Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps

2006-12-27 Thread Rich Comroe
We typically make customer contact when a customer shows up as a regular on our 
1Gbyte Honor Roll (a daily list of everyone with = 1Gbyte in or out in the 
past 24 hrs).  Often we find they are infected, but sometimes P2Pers.  We crank 
down their CIR if they don't clean up until they are off that 1GByte list.

Rich

  - Original Message - 
  From: Jonathan Schmidt 
  To: 'WISPA General List' 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 11:37 AM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] bits per mbps


  True, Matt, often a better way.

  Now, what to do with P2P abusers?

   . . j o n a t h a n

  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Matt Liotta
  Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 10:39 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps

  You don't need to host Akamai boxes and/or rely solely on Akamai's 
  customers content for an improvement in experience and a decrease in 
  transit cost. IMHO, the easier way is to simply peer with the various 
  CDNs. If you peer with Akamai, LimeLight, Google, Yahoo, etc you won't 
  pay for transit of their content and it will be fast... very fast.

  -Matt

  Jonathan Schmidt wrote:
   Hi, and Happy New Year, all, before I forget
  
   The Akamai caches content that folks pay them to put on it which includes
   stuff like Microsoft updates, Real Player updates and downloads,
  anti-virus
   vendor downloads, etc.  It's really great since the latency vanishes and I
   note here that I experience downloads of updates of 4 to 5 megabits per
   second on the cable modem...a rate that wouldn't be possible even with the
   large XP window size with latencies to the original sites.
  
   However, it won't cache most sites since they are often not capable of
  being
   cached without breaking the experience for the user and, besides, Akamai
   doesn't care.
  
   It won't cache P2P traffic like BitTorrent or Napster, traffic that is
   likely the source of a lot of network load.
  
   It is a completely different animal in a different sphere of operation
  and,
   although valuable, isn't an ad-hoc cache.
  
   . . . j o n a t h a n
  
  
   -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
   Behalf Of Travis Johnson
   Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 8:27 AM
   To: WISPA General List
   Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps
  
   Hi,
  
   We've had one for almost 5 years now... but there isn't anything to 
   play with. They ship you three 1u servers and a Cisco switch. You plug 
   everything in and turn it on. They do all the admin, config, setup, etc. 
   and don't allow you access whatsoever.
  
   But it does work great. Microsoft updates come VERY fast (over 10Mbps 
   speeds) and many other sites are just as fast. However, I have no idea 
   who to contact, as we were approached by them.
  
   Travis
   Microserv
  
   David E. Smith wrote:
 
   George Rogato wrote:
  
   
   You know Akamai is also an option. As I recall they require you to 
   have x number of subs and then send you their boxes to be set up on 
   your network. All free.
 
   Any idea on how many subs you need before this becomes an option? I've 
   heard that Akamai will do this, and I love having new toys in my NOC 
   to play with, but I've never been able to find out just how you go 
   about getting one.
  
   David Smith
   MVN.net
   

  -- 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


  -- 
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

2006-12-26 Thread Rich Comroe
Products that are best effort [snip product name]
end up making guys like us look bad.

I'm confused how can anyone do better than best effort in unlicensed 
spectrum, regardless of manufacturer?

There is nothing worse than installing one day at 6Mbps and the next day
getting a call saying they are getting something less than that.

If you have no allowance for even temporary interference, what short of a 
licensed channel can accomplish that?

Rich
  - Original Message - 
  From: Brad Belton 
  To: 'WISPA General List' 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 5:17 PM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived


  If we are in an environment where ANY particular solution will not produce
  the results we are after then we look at other products.  We will not tie
  our hands to one brand.  No reason to.

  Our business model is different than the next and so on and so on.  Yes, CIR
  is what we sell not MIR.  That may be a good thing for us or it may turn out
  to be a bad thing for us, but that is the level of service we strive to
  deliver.  

  Products that are best effort like VL end up making guys like us look bad.
  There is nothing worse than installing one day at 6Mbps and the next day
  getting a call saying they are getting something less than that.

  Expectations and end results are everything to us.  We meet expectations or
  we'd rather not do it, part ways amiability and maintain our reputation.
  It's a small town!  

  Best,


  Brad



  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
  Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 2:57 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

  The Alvarion VL is great for bursty, best effort requirements where 90% of
  the user applications can wait for that clear air within the noise floor,
  but not for committed rate business class service.

  Agreed.  But what about when you are in an environment that TDD won't work 
  well? Sometimes the answer is to modify your offering to what the beset 
  thing is that can be delivered.
  CIR service may need to be changed to MIR. In what cases is CIR really 
  needed? And what areas of your business or network also prevent the CIR Full

  QOS guarantee from being realized?

  Tom DeReggi
  RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
  IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:03 PM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived


  My thoughts exactly.

  If the VL had a mechanism to tune out noise and a few other tools (dual
  pol - dual band) that would enable the user avoid noise then it is possible
  there simply would not be a better PtMP LE product available today.  Without
  those critical elements the VL is just not able to perform consistently in
  RF hostile environments.

  The Alvarion VL is great for bursty, best effort requirements where 90% of
  the user applications can wait for that clear air within the noise floor,
  but not for committed rate business class service.

  Best,


  Brad





  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
  Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 11:46 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived

  Got it.  Thanks.

  I guess my beef comes from being a wifi based wisp.  I find it too
  difficult to reject interference with a csma based product.  Anything with a

  wait for clear air, then transmit MAC is GREAT for collocation.  But sucks

  when there are products around that don't follow that mechanism.  That's (my

  personal belief) why Canopy went with it's GPS sync.  It doesn't care who's
  already out there, when it's time to transmit it does.  Trango does that to,

  just without sync'ing the AP's.

  My REAL world experience so far is that csmak (or csma/ca, or whatever
  collision avoidance scheme you want to use) is GREAT where there aren't many

  other systems within ear shot of the radios.  However, when there are other
  devices in the area, especially those that don't have a collision avoidance
  mechanism, the csma radio will pay a heavy price in performance.

  Having used both csma and polling products, I'm not putting in any wifi type

  products at 5 gig.  All of our next gen products will be polling as long as
  we can keep things that way.

  These days, I'm learning to sacrifice raw performance for reliability and
  uptime.  There's a balance, sure, but getting that last 10 to 20% out of a
  product is less important to me than having a product that can survive some
  of the games that my less scrupulous competitors play.

  However, with EITHER technology choice, it's critical to design a network
  that can, and does, physically (antenna choice and ap locations) isolates
  

Re: [WISPA] Old News -- but can someone patent a mesh network

2006-11-16 Thread Rich Comroe
The patent you cite was filed Jan 27, 2000.  In general, to challenge a 
patent you'd have to find publicly available description (publication), 
prior patent, or public offer of the technology for sale pre-dating the 
patent's filing date.  The patent office has already searched prior patents 
and found none prior to Jan 27 2000.If you can, there's some attorney's 
that'd very much like to know what you know.  But just being familiar with 
Mesh for the last-almost-7-years doesn't count.  Not knowing that some 
technology may be subject to Intellectual Property Right does not make it 
free.  The most well known case of this is GIF image encoding.  This was 
used freely on the web, literally for years, before the IPR holder chose to 
begin asserting their claim (it was apparently years before the IPR holder 
even knew that they actually held IPR!! ... typical big company syndrome 
IIRC).


Rich


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

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 9:06 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Old News -- but can someone patent a mesh network


http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/view_press_release.php?rID=9156

Their patent reads as follows

US Patent No 6,249,516 B1

WIRELESS NETWORK GATEAWY AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING SAME

A wireless network system includes a server having a server controller and a
server radio modem, and a number of clients each including a client
controller and a client radio modem.  The server controller implements a
server process that includes the receipt and the transmission of data
packets via the radio modem.  The client controllers of each of the clients
implements a client process that includes the receipt and transmission of
data packets via the client radio modem.  The client process of each of the
clients intiates, selects, and maintains a radio transmission path to the
server that is either a direct path to the server, or is an indirect path or
link to the server through at least one of the remainder of the clients.
A method for providing wireless network communication includes providing a
server imeplementing a server process including receiving data packets via a
radio modem, sending data packets via the server radio modem, communicating
with the network, and performing housekeeping functions, and further
includes providing a number of clients, each implementing a client process
sending and receiving data packets via a client radio modem, maintaining a
send/receive data buffer, and selecting a radio transmission path to the
server.  The radio transmission path or link is either a direct path to
the server, or an indirect path to the server through at least one of the
remainder of the clients.  The process preferably optimizes the link to
minimize the number of hops to the server.

I'm not a lawyer, but this seems a bit ridiculous to me...

Thoughts?

-Charles


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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

2006-11-02 Thread Rich Comroe

Howdy,

I was an active member of the ASTM DSRC sandards formulating committee for 
roughly 2 yrs (2000-2001).  This is all familiar stuff, and I appreciate 
seeing the URL to see how the effort has proceeded.


John wrote:
Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band frequencies. 
I was told this has nothing to do with existing frequencies we use for our 
networks.


Yes, and no.  Most of the DSRC rules deal with the band above the existing 
UNII band, true enough.  But DSRC is intended to be populated by DUAL-BAND 
units (spoken to briefly in this FCC order).  In fact, one of the issues 
petitioned was to recommend action to SAVE the DSRC band from being 
destroyed by malicious wifi usage by dual-band units ... which the 
commission has apparently rejected for the moment according to this order.


Rick Smith raises the concern for usage in the neighboring DSRC band:

yep, just like paging's Just above the 900 mhz unlicensed bands but makes
926 and above useless.   See ... ?


Yeah, that is a valid concern.  They're contemplating a lot of outdoor units 
(like one in every American car).  FYI, when I left the activity ASTM was 
recommending DSRC use a 10MHz wide 802.11a variant with limited power, and 
road-side units of limited height.  They're not trying to do multiple miles. 
When DSRC applications are broken into short-medium--long range, they're 
talking about 10-30 feet (short, like electronic toll collection and 
pay-at-the-pump), 300-600 feet (medium, like road signage), and 1000 feet 
(long, for emergency traffic light control).


So, just as sufficient wifi energy can impact an adjacent band, proximity to 
a busy roadway can potentially impact the high wifi channels.  However, the 
intent of DSRC to promote unlicensed wifi outdoors in the 5.8 UNII band via 
dual-band usage may be more troubling to wisps than bleed-over from DSRC 
band usage.


Rich

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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)


Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band frequencies. 
I was told this has nothing to do with existing frequencies we use for our 
networks.

Scriv


Rick Smith wrote:


potential horrendous MOBILE interference to 5805 channels...

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:14 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

Dawn,
Could you tell us what interest you believe there should be for WISPs
involving this proceeding? I am doubting it as much as I would like to 
know

your personal thoughts on the subject. Kris Twomey looked into this for me
some time back and told me it is of no concern for WISPs. If you see
something he did not though please forward it along.
Thank you,
Scriv


Dawn DiPietro wrote:



All,

Below is something WISPA should be paying attention to.

WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
AMENDMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES REGARDING DEDICATED SHORT-RANGE 
COMMUNICATION SERVICES IN THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND (5.9 GHZ BAND), 
AMENDMENT OF PARTS 2 AND 90 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO ALLOCATE THE

5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND TO THE MOBILE SERVICE

And here is the link for those of you who would like to look into this in 
further detail.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-110A1.pdf

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

2006-11-02 Thread Rich Comroe

John wrote:
In fact I think that vehicles and WISPs should be able to add those bands 
together with the existing UNII bands and anyone make use of all of it but 
that is not an option currently.


Got that right (that it's not an option currently).  DSRC may be using a 
wifi variant (narrowed 802.11a), but the DSRC usage is not intended to be 
the same traffic as consumer wireless internet that wifi typically 
carries.  DSRC has a variety of functions, mostly related to highway traffic 
for the safety of the public.  As such, DSRC traffic requires various 
priorities, the most stringent demanding lower latency than could be 
achievable unless the channels are dedicated to DSRC functionality. 
Unlicensed functions for any purpose are contemplated to take place on 
UNII channels as they are designated for today,  and the DSRC channel access 
layer for safety functions may be totally different than 802.11 MAC.  We 
were headed that way when I left that committee's work (it was one of the 
few things that I'd contributed to their effort that stuck) and from my 
reading of the FCC order, I think it's still that way (discussion of control 
channels).   As such there's a sensitivity of DSRC members that dual-band 
units not be able to operate using standard 802.11 MAC on the DSRC channels 
which could put the dedicated DSRC safety functions at risk.


Rich

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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)


Actually I am able to use the entire 900 MHz band here. Selectivity of 
tuners has never been an issue the FCC seems very willing to consider when 
adjacent uses are being suggested. As I understand it the systems being 
proposed are low power vehicle communications. I am not trying to say I am 
all for them having more spectrum. In fact I think that vehicles and WISPs 
should be able to add those bands together with the existing UNII bands 
and anyone make use of all of it but that is not an option currently. The 
proposal, as I remember it, was for vehicles to be allowed to use this 
space for low power vehicle communications. Our attorney, Kris Twomey, 
told us it is of little to no concern to WISPs. I could not find anything 
regarding this that was terribly important to WISPs. If I am wrong then 
please tell me how I am wrong and why it is important for WISPs to take a 
stand of any kind in this proceeding and then we will consider it. I 
promise I have not made my mind up yet on this and I would be glad to take 
a stand if one is needed. I welcome others feedback.

Thanks,
Scriv

Rick Smith wrote:

yep, just like paging's Just above the 900 mhz unlicensed bands but 
makes

926 and above useless.   See ... ?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:31 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band frequencies. 
I

was told this has nothing to do with existing frequencies we use for our
networks.
Scriv


Rick Smith wrote:



potential horrendous MOBILE interference to 5805 channels...

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
Behalf Of John Scrivner

Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:14 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

Dawn,
Could you tell us what interest you believe there should be for WISPs 
involving this proceeding? I am doubting it as much as I would like to 
know your personal thoughts on the subject. Kris Twomey looked into this 
for me some time back and told me it is of no concern for WISPs. If you 
see something he did not though please forward it along.

Thank you,
Scriv


Dawn DiPietro wrote:




All,

Below is something WISPA should be paying attention to.

WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
AMENDMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES REGARDING DEDICATED SHORT-RANGE 
COMMUNICATION SERVICES IN THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND (5.9 GHZ BAND), 
AMENDMENT OF PARTS 2 AND 90 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO ALLOCATE THE

5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND TO THE MOBILE SERVICE

And here is the link for those of you who would like to look into this 
in further detail.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-110A1.pdf

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
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


Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

2006-11-02 Thread Rich Comroe

What part did you play in setting up this new standard, Rich?


I personally advocated DSRC be a different technology than wifi, and that 
this was desirable to keep usage separate.  What can I say?  I worked for 
Motorola at the time, and we proposed Canopy!  I left the activity when the 
committee went 802.11a, as my company wasn't prepared to support DSRC 
products to that standard.  I actually had initial success selling the Moto 
concept, but it became clear after the Atheros 802.11a chips arrived to 
committee for testing that Motorola had no integrated chip solution planned 
for Canopy.  802.11 manufacturers (Atheros, Intersil, etc.) advocated the 
common technology to promote lower cost through volume.  They were obviously 
trying to sell their solutions as we were trying to sell ours.  Many users, 
however, saw value to commonality with wifi as a bridge.  This needs 
further explaining.


For the safety of the driving public, there's lots of things that become 
possible were vehicles able to talk to other vehicles as well as road-side 
units.  But it's a chicken and egg situation.  If transmitters are there 
every 500 feet along every roadway and highway, people will want DSRC 
trasceivers for their cars.  Likewise if the cars all had DSRC transceivers, 
one can imagine public funding for adding all the roadway and highway 
transceivers.  What comes first?



Why on earth do they want to overlap UNII bands for this purpose?


As drivers add transceivers to their car visors for automatic toll 
collection, paying for gas, purchasing at McDonalds (all things that were 
beginning to appear around 2000), adopting a wifi-common technology that 
might grow privately financed commercial mobile wifi-usage in UNII in a 
common OBU (OnBoardUnit) that can also operate DSRC was considered 
attractive.


To be clear, DSRC is not contemplated overlapping in the UNII band.  Mobile 
based UNII band applications in the UNII band in a device that is hardware 
common with DSRC applications is what's contemplated.  They contemplate 
every Burger King wanting to add a 5.8GHz wifi AP for their drive-thru line 
But that definitely contemplates a growth in outdoor mobile usage of the 5.8 
UNII band.  But usage of the UNII band is not within the DSRC standard ... 
the UNII band rules already exist (and permits just about anything within 
mask and power limits) ... just the operation on DSRC channels above the 
UNII band is the focus of the DSRC standard.  DSRC functions are public 
safety specific ... UNII usage on DSRC channels is not allowed.  It wouldn't 
make any sense to do high priority DSRC functions on UNII channels.  But 
it's the commonality of a combination unit that spans upper UNII and DSRC 
that some hope will entice every motorist into wanting an OBU (DOT hates 
trying to mandate equipment for all new vehicles, something that the public 
will want on their own is much preferred).  Hope that makes sense.


Rich

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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)


Why on earth do they want to overlap UNII bands for this purpose? Do they 
want both UNII and this new system to fail? Why is this something they 
even considered? Why give them their own band if the intent is to also 
overlap another unlicensed band? What sort of crack are they smoking here?


What part did you play in setting up this new standard, Rich? I wonder why 
Kris Twomey missed this earlier? Was the upper 5.8 overlap added later? I 
think it would be a good idea for someone to find the language which 
discusses this overlap so we can discuss what we would want to do about 
commenting to the FCC.


Hey Ken or Dawn DiPietro, next time why don't you just tell us why you 
think WISPA needs to be involved? I told you before that I thought this 
was outside our existing bands and you never replied.

Scriv


Rich Comroe wrote:


Howdy,

I was an active member of the ASTM DSRC sandards formulating committee 
for roughly 2 yrs (2000-2001).  This is all familiar stuff, and I 
appreciate seeing the URL to see how the effort has proceeded.


John wrote:

Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band 
frequencies. I was told this has nothing to do with existing frequencies 
we use for our networks.



Yes, and no.  Most of the DSRC rules deal with the band above the 
existing UNII band, true enough.  But DSRC is intended to be populated by 
DUAL-BAND units (spoken to briefly in this FCC order).  In fact, one of 
the issues petitioned was to recommend action to SAVE the DSRC band from 
being destroyed by malicious wifi usage by dual-band units ... which the 
commission has apparently rejected for the moment according to this 
order.


Rick Smith raises the concern for usage in the neighboring DSRC band:

yep, just like paging's Just above the 900 mhz unlicensed bands but 
makes

926

Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux

2006-10-28 Thread Rich Comroe

Eric wrote:

Looking at the beacon realtime manager and tcpdump, we've never seen
an unreasonable # of broadcasts when this is happening.


On our network 200 broadcasts per second is pretty typical.  When we see it 
spike to over 1200 per second (6-fold rise), it really drives the latency 
up.  Don't be fooled by total bw metrics ... broadcasts are so short that 
crippling broadcast storms don't show any spike in total traffic (traffic is 
actually squeezed out by the broadcasts dominating the radios).  I'm 
thinking tcpdump is like the packet dump that ethereal uses.  How do you 
determine how many broadcasts per second is transiting the AP from it?  Just 
curious.  I'm not familiar with beacon realtime manager ... can it tell 
you how many broadcasts per second are on the air during your events?  When 
you say you've never seen an unreasonable # of broadcasts, how many 
broadcasts per second do you see during an event?  What we do is simply 
chart broadcasts in  out for every radio on our network on a continuous 
basis.  Just about anything will do that, so knowing broadcast levels (and 
who's causing them) is a piece of cake ... no harder than opening a web page 
and scrolling to spot the offenders.


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Eric Merkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux



On 10/27/06, Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

We look at the traffic on the
tower for abuse and/or virus and don't really find anything.

Just to be clear, you've checked your AP broadcast levels during the 
events

and not found found them elevated?  We found the most crippling network
events were not coming into the network from the outside, but were 
broadcast

storms between 2 or more customers (repeated through the APs).  They act
similar to the symptoms you cited (a few minutes of extremely elevated
latency due to the short term load they place over the rf).

Rich



We try to mitigate this problem by the following:

1) Turning off inter-BSS Relay
2) We block all the typical MS ports(135-139) which broadcast all the
time via iptables
3) Packet shape all connections via CBQ on the AP itself to limit how
much bandwidth any one customer can consume

Looking at the beacon realtime manager and tcpdump, we've never seen
an unreasonable # of broadcasts when this is happening.

-Eric
--
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] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen

2006-10-27 Thread Rich Comroe

I'd originally written:

The preponderence of NexTel channels are in the private land mobile
806-821/850-865 conventional / trunking band, and a small percentage in the
902-906 trunking band.

...

I am most likely off on the numeric band


I sure was [numerically off - that is].  What's known as the '900' trunking 
band runs from 896-902.  I was only correct that it is *below* the 900 ISM 
band, and that it is only 12.5kHz channelized.


rwf wrote:

Just so we all know where you are coming from and in the interest of Full
Disclosure, please tell us your involvement in the
Dialcall/Nextel/Motorola/IDEN endeavor- specifically any vested interest 
in

the technology (hint- Patents).


Concerned that I might be some company shill?  No need.  I'd be happy to 
provide full disclosure.  I left Moto about 4 yrs ago.  I did some of the 
original work on Motorola's FCC comments to FleetCall's waiver request back 
in 92, but never worked in iDEN development.  None of my patents are 
specific to iDEN technology, but I'd be flattered if you had looked them up. 
I've no vested interest in any of them anyway (all patents rights while 
employed at Moto are assigned to Moto, not the inventors).  I've no vested 
interest in NexTel.  As close as I get is my neighbor is a NexTel employee 
in sales ... does that count?   Personally, I never liked or used NexTel 
service based on poor coverage / quality where I needed service.  Hey, terms 
like '800' MHz, '900' MHz are *not one allocation*.  Being from the radio 
manufacturing industry I'm acutely aware of how many different allocations 
are within these ranges.  That's all, I just trying to be helpful in 
pointing out where the NexTel 900 trunking you mentioned is in relation to 
900 MHz unlicensed ISM.  And that I know that the iDEN served orders or 
magnitude more customers for NexTel than the original SMR license holders 
ever had, as FleetCall's original petition for waiver had correctly claimed. 
And that it's public knowledge where NexTel's new developments are targeted 
to other bands in conjunction with Sprint.


chill,
Rich

- Original Message - 
From: rwf [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 2:24 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen



Rich-
Just so we all know where you are coming from and in the interest of Full
Disclosure, please tell us your involvement in the
Dialcall/Nextel/Motorola/IDEN endeavor- specifically any vested interest 
in

the technology (hint- Patents).



-Original Message-

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen

I don't know what the beef is.  FleetCall bought up in the vicinity of 100
trunking  SMR channels in each major metro almost 20 yrs ago.  They 
claimed

to the FCC that they could serve significantly more users than the typical
100 users/channel of the current early 90s analog technology.  100 
channels

at 100 users apiece serves only in the vicinity of 10,000 users.  With the
iDen technology they ultimately served almost half a million in the same
geographic area with the same spectrum.  So much for the unneeded
technology assessment.

Now that they're called NexTel, sure they continue adding whatever 
remaining
licenses they can get their hands on, but the 800 and 900 Trunking and 
bands

are land-locked (no room for expansion), so there's no new technology
targeted to this band that I know of.  Now that they're merged with 
Sprint,

it's no secret where their new technology is targeted (WiMAX).

Rich

--
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 Gremlin, redux

2006-10-27 Thread Rich Comroe

We look at the traffic on the
tower for abuse and/or virus and don't really find anything.


Just to be clear, you've checked your AP broadcast levels during the events 
and not found found them elevated?  We found the most crippling network 
events were not coming into the network from the outside, but were broadcast 
storms between 2 or more customers (repeated through the APs).  They act 
similar to the symptoms you cited (a few minutes of extremely elevated 
latency due to the short term load they place over the rf).


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Eric Merkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux



On 10/27/06, David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Jack Unger wrote:
 If it's true that there's a giant something that's spewing noise, you
 can use a spectrum analyzer and try to identify the noise signature,
 then triangulate.

If it would just stay broken for a couple hours, I'd love to do that.

Sadly, this problem usually just shows up for a minute or two at a time,
and never more than about fifteen minutes.

The boss and I have tried that before, and the problem is just too
intermittent for us to be able to narrow down that way. Of course, our
spectrum-fu is not that strong.

David Smith
MVN.net



David,

We have a similar situation happening mainly on one tower of ours.
Basicially it is a StarOS V2 on WRAP boards setup using Prism cards
for the AP's. We have 4 90* horizontal sectors. Everyones's signals
are great and it runs fine most of the time. Occassionaly we see times
where people have 10-20% packet loss. We look at the traffic on the
tower for abuse and/or virus and don't really find anything. We've
tried different channels and it doesn't seem to help. Other times
there is no loss at all.

Most of our clients on CB3's but we do have some Orinoco based
clients. The Orinoco based clients don't seem to have the problem as
much as the CB3's do however. I have not really pinned down what the
difference between them would be that would cause the Orinoco's not to
show this behaviour even though their signal may be somewhat lower.

We've taken a spectrum analyzer up the tower and don't really see any
other signals that are really hot out there but it feels like an
interefernce problem. Unfortunately, the tower is about an hour drive
so catching this while it happens has proved somewhat problematic.

In anycase, I feel your pain. I'll let you know if we figure out
what this issue is.

-Eric
--
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] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen

2006-10-26 Thread Rich Comroe
I don't know what the beef is.  FleetCall bought up in the vicinity of 100 
trunking  SMR channels in each major metro almost 20 yrs ago.  They claimed 
to the FCC that they could serve significantly more users than the typical 
100 users/channel of the current early 90s analog technology.  100 channels 
at 100 users apiece serves only in the vicinity of 10,000 users.  With the 
iDen technology they ultimately served almost half a million in the same 
geographic area with the same spectrum.  So much for the unneeded 
technology assessment.


Now that they're called NexTel, sure they continue adding whatever remaining 
licenses they can get their hands on, but the 800 and 900 Trunking and bands 
are land-locked (no room for expansion), so there's no new technology 
targeted to this band that I know of.  Now that they're merged with Sprint, 
it's no secret where their new technology is targeted (WiMAX).


Rich

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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen


I am not familiar with the terms you describe below and I am a bit 
confused. Can you break this down with a little more detail and 
explanation? I would like to understand this as I think it is very 
important for us to know what they are trying to do here in 900 MHz.

Thank you,
John Scrivner


rwf wrote:


Nextel has been buying up 900 MHz trunked systems for years now.
Probably will do what they did to build their first ESMR (Nextel IDEN)-
Take perfectly good systems off the air so they can drive the users to an
unneeded tcchnology.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:05 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen

I think this is definately something we need the answer to (What part of
900Mhz). What exactly is Green Space?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 4:38 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen




http://www.rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=27618

They don't say exact freq's except for the reference to unlicensed...
R



--
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] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen

2006-10-26 Thread Rich Comroe
The preponderence of NexTel channels are in the private land mobile 
806-821/850-865 conventional / trunking band, and a small percentage in the 
902-906 trunking band.  So I believe whatever '900' channels they have are 
*below* the 900 ISM band.  I am most likely off on the numeric band limits. 
But there are IIRC 15MHz of 25KHz channels that they hold licenses among at 
800 (and the separate reverse channels 45MHz higher), and only 4MHz of 
12.5KHz channels at 900 (including both TR, but I don't recall the T/R 
split there).


Rich

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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:49 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen



Before everyone gets in an uproar about this, has anyone looked in to the
actual frequencies being used? I'm pretty sure Nextel has some licensed 
900

MHz spectrum. I don't have time to dig around for the information but as I
recall they do. I could be wrong. They certainly won't deploy an IDEN 
system

in the unlicensed bandsCome on. They might however cause
interference with unlicensed stuff in certain situations where you might 
be

co-located on the same sites. From what I have read I think this is only
going to be in selected East Coast cities anyway, and it's a band aid
approach to the rebanding process.



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


-Original Message-
From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:30 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen


I am not familiar with the terms you describe below and I am a bit
confused. Can you break this down with a little more detail and
explanation? I would like to understand this as I think it is very
important for us to know what they are trying to do here in 900 MHz.
Thank you,
John Scrivner


rwf wrote:


Nextel has been buying up 900 MHz trunked systems for years now.
Probably will do what they did to build their first ESMR (Nextel IDEN)-
Take perfectly good systems off the air so they can drive the users to an
unneeded tcchnology.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:05 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen

I think this is definately something we need the answer to (What part of
900Mhz). What exactly is Green Space?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 4:38 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen





http://www.rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=27618

They don't say exact freq's except for the reference to unlicensed...
R



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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







--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] BST Wireless Deployed in 10 cities

2006-10-13 Thread Rich Comroe
Isn't it the WiMAX mobility opportunity?  Wasn't the original 802.16 specs 
completely rewritten to add the opportunity for mobility?


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 11:31 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] BST Wireless Deployed in 10 cities


This may be a bit silly since I'm only a wireless guy (don't do DSL or 
anything else).  But if you are the telco, why would you want to go 
wireless?  I would think it would be cheaper and more reliable to provide 
internet over the wire you already have strung to the customers house... 
Anyone who knows better care to enlighten me?


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless

Peter R. wrote:

BellSouth Expands pre-WiMAX Service to 2 More Markets
http://www.convergedigest.com/Wireless/broadbandwirelessarticle.asp?ID=19588

BellSouth announced the expansion of its pre-WiMAX broadband wireless 
into

two new markets by late October -- select parts of Albany, Georgia and
Paducah, Kentucky. Additionally, service will be expanded in the New 
Orleans

area to include New Orleans East. With these expansions, BellSouth will
offer the service in 10 Southeastern markets, including four markets
recently launched in September: North Charleston, S.C.; Melbourne, Fla.;
Greenville, Miss.; and Chattanooga, Tenn.

BellSouth Wireless Broadband Service offers downstream speeds up to 
1.5Mbps

using its licensed WCS 2.3GHz spectrum.
http://www.bellsouth.net/wirelessbb
05-Oct-06



Regards,

Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect  Communicate
813.963.5884  efax 530-323-7025
http://4isps.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] ot? New pc card slot in laptop

2006-09-07 Thread Rich Comroe
We got one of the Hawking Hi-Gain USB Wireless-G Dish Adapter just today. 
Has a 5-led signal strength display.  Great fun.  It's dish antenna is 
built-in but they may have one with an external antenna connection too.


Rich

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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] ot? New pc card slot in laptop



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


It also has no PCMCIA slot!
It's got a slot that's the right size but the connections inside the
slot are all wrong.


That's probably an ExpressCard slot. Welcome to the bleeding edge. :)


I need to find an external wireless card that I can hook a cable to and
get actual dB data from various antennas.


I'm not sure such a creature exists yet. I suspect most laptops that
have the new ExpressCard slot also have built-in wireless, so there
isn't a perceived market for it.


Anyone have any idea what this is and/or what I can do to make this work?


Well, if you're so inclined, chances are the laptop has a mini-PCI slot
(if you've got onboard wireless, it definitely does). In theory, you
could drill a little teensy hole in the mini-PCI slot cover, and run a
pigtail out from the onboard wireless card to an external antenna. It'd
look awfully ghetto but it'd probably work.

(Disclaimer: This is a crazy idea. David Smith, his boss, and MVN take
no responsibility for this. Void where prohibited. Do not taunt Happy
Fun Ball.)

David Smith
MVN.net
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale

2006-08-18 Thread Rich Comroe
Way back in the time known as BC ... (that's Before Cellular), the FCC 
authorized different frequency coordinators in various markets to manage 
licenses.  An applicant applied to the frequency coordinator for the 
frequency, lat, lon, and power of a desired station, the frequency 
coordinator checked for conflict with other licensed stations, and the FCC 
actually issued the licenses for a fee.   The terms of the license 
required implementation within a year (IIRC), and the license holder was 
required to submit at some interval (yearly?) how many transceivers were 
served to the coordinator to keep its database up to date.  It was (IMHO) 
rational, and served the market of radio users.  Doesn't sound that far off 
from what Matt describes.


Cellular changed all that.  In the early 80s the FCC feared an avalanche of 
applications for a limited number of licenses.  Cellular design dictated 
that the licenses be regional, permitting the operator to place stations at 
will within the served area.  But it was made clear that all licensed 
systems would have to follow the standard (AMPS) and be interoperable. 
They tried a lottery, hoping market pressures would force the multiple 
applicants to consolidate down to fewer applications (that deals, perhaps 
monitary in nature, would be made among the applicants keeping the FCC out 
of it).


Later when the first PCS licenses were issued it's my impression that an 
accounting type mentality had taken over at the FCC ... let's grant the 
license to the highest bidder ... and to maximize the monitary value, they 
made it clear that any carrier winning the license could put up whatever 
technology they wanted!  Interoperability in the interest of the nation's 
good was dismissed in favor of maximizing government revenue ... and the 
first PCS auction amazed everyone how much government revenue could be 
extracted in return for licenses.  Consumer service (coverage) for digital 
cellular plummeted as subscribers could receive no service from roughly 4 
out of 5 deployed towers, the US digital cellular standard was abandonned, 
and the rest of the world looked elsewhere for digital cellular leadership 
(adopting GSM, largely because of the simple fact that European licensing 
strategies were much more rational, which promoted their industry and their 
technology).


All in all I don't consider Matt's idea hair-brained at all, but merely a 
return to a more rational time when the FCC's mandate was to simply serve 
the nation's spectrum needs (rather than serving the Treasury Dept).


Rich

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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale


Although I see your point, how would it be inforced? When they didn't make 
quota, do the ones that did get installed jsut get shut off when spectrum 
gets returned.

Allocating spectrum based on empty promises is not good practice either.
What they aught to do is have the selling price and give a discount in the 
form of rebates at time quotas are met.
The problem with charging based on number's served is that spectrum is not 
necessarilly going to be used for a volume market, other reasons may be 
jsut as valuable.
For example public safety may serve fewer people but have just a value to 
consumer well being.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale


Imagine what would happen if the FCC sold the license not to the highest 
bidder, but the one that was contractually forced to serve the most 
customers. Either way the company in question would require billions to 
win, but the later option might actually result in more customers being 
served, the money being spent on deployment, and the ability for 
innovative companies to raise money contingent on their business model 
winning.


-Matt

Rich Comroe wrote:
Amen.  Designing government policy for the purpose of generating the 
highest income from spectrum licensing is completely contrary to policy 
designed to serve the public.  This had a major role in the US cellular 
industry losing the worldwide lead (which didn't do any American any 
good).  Why can't our government understand this?  European 3G spectrum 
auctions nearly broke the back of BT (forced it into bankruptcy and 
spliting the company such that the telecom half didn't sink with the 
cellular half ... or at least that's how I understood it).  The FCC 
should be managing spectrum for the benefit of the American people, not 
managing spectrum to maximize government revenue.  But that's just me.


Rich

- Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA

Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale

2006-08-17 Thread Rich Comroe
Amen.  Designing government policy for the purpose of generating the highest 
income from spectrum licensing is completely contrary to policy designed to 
serve the public.  This had a major role in the US cellular industry losing 
the worldwide lead (which didn't do any American any good).  Why can't our 
government understand this?  European 3G spectrum auctions nearly broke the 
back of BT (forced it into bankruptcy and spliting the company such that the 
telecom half didn't sink with the cellular half ... or at least that's how I 
understood it).  The FCC should be managing spectrum for the benefit of the 
American people, not managing spectrum to maximize government revenue.  But 
that's just me.


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale


Finally, a big company that's got the brains to tell the government to 
stick their high price spectrum tax where the sun don't shine!


marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:38 AM
Subject: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale



DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060816/tc_nm/telecoms_wireless_satellite_dc_3

Thank you.

Regards,

Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect  Communicate
813.963.5884  efax 530-323-7025
http://4isps.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/wireless

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


Re: [WISPA] Network Storm

2006-08-10 Thread Rich Comroe



Tim Kerns wrote:
The last time this happened to me 90% of my 
network was bridged.
Now I am 90% routed and have not seen the 
problem

Very true, as long as you're not using Motorola 
Canopy. We also used routing to break up the broadcast domains. 
Problem using Motorola Canopy is that an AP Site with up to6APs are 
bridged within the Motorola site equipment (CMM)and we continued having 
storms within a site (between multiple offending customer CPE served from the 
same site) even after adding a router at each site. With non-Motorola APs 
you can do a better job andblock CPE-CPE traffic within the same AP and 
independently feed each AP from a site router.

Rich

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Tim Kerns 

  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 9:52 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Storm
  
  Ron,
  
  Are you seeing icmp to other IP's that are 
  unreachable along with the icmp to 0.0.0.0 ?
  
  I have seen this in the past and looked like it 
  was coming from a linksys router. I suspected the router was randomly replying 
  to other's IP's, basically causing loops.To isolate I had to disable 
  different AP's to discover which AP it was originating from, then acl each 
  client until I could isolate to a client, long process in between network 
  hangs. The last time this happened to me 90% of my network was bridged. Now I 
  am 90% routed and have not seen the problem
  
  Tim 
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Ron 
Wallace 
To: WISPA General List ; William.L. 
Edwards 
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 7:37 
AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network 
Storm

Thanks Bill.
-Original Message-From: William.L. 
  Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, August 10, 
  2006 10:26 AMTo: ''WISPA General List'', [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: 
  [WISPA] Network Storm
  It is probably 
  peer to peer traffic. That can take a network down very quickly. You will 
  have to hunt down which user is hammering your network. Probably 
  BitTorrent traffic if I were guessing.
  
  
  W.L. EdwardsCEORNet CommunicationsOffice 
  765-342-3554Fax 765-349-4880IMPORTANT: Confidentiality 
  Statement:This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee 
  and may containinformation that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you 
  are not theintended recipient, dissemination of this communication is 
  prohibited. Ifyou have received this communication in error, please 
  erase all copies ofthe message and its attachments and notify RNet 
  Communications immediately
  

-Original Message-From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
Behalf Of Ron WallaceSent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 
10:16 AMTo: wireless@wispa.org; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [WISPA] Network 
Storm

To all,

I am having a network storm, the 
first. All activity light 
switches on the wireless net are flashing like crazy, both at the data 
center and customer sites, may not mean much, but it has not happened 
before. There is a huge 
amount of traffic on the canopy sys. Others have discussed an ICMP 
storm w/ a (0.0.0.0) address that comes from Linksys  Netgear 
routers. There are about 20 
on my net, of 90 users.

I am aknow-nothing at this, and 
really a hardware/RF guy. 
Not familiar with Ethereal or other SW that monitors the 
net. What are you all 
using? Where do I get 
it? What are your thoughts 
and advice?

Any help or advice you could offer would 
be greatly appreciated. I'll do whatever you all 
advise.

Ron Wallace
Tigernet
Phone: 517-547-8410
Mobile: 517-605-4542
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




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



Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.Checked by AVG 
Anti-Virus.Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/391 - Release 
Date: 7/18/2006
  
  

  Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.Checked by AVG 
  Anti-Virus.Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/391 - Release Date: 
  7/18/2006
  
  

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

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

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


Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone

2006-06-20 Thread Rich Comroe
Nah.  It's just a phone.  Ordinary wired phones already offer more features 
than people want without VoIP.  Ordinary phone service typically offers you 
a list of 25 features.  People don't want em, so in my midwest Ameritech 
area (now ATT land) they typically throw in 5 features from the feature 
list for free.  Most people don't even want the 5 free features ... they're 
just nuisances.  There's a damn it, just take 'em attitude where the phone 
company now bundles several of the features into all local service whether 
you want 'em or not.


For the mass of the population it's simply about dial-tone  plain local / 
long distance talk-time.  The phone companies learned to accept this.  The 
same hype that it's more than replacing the phone used to be said about 
ISDN for 20 years (yes, ISDN *is* that old).  Not one advanced ISDN feature 
EVER became popular with consumers.  Within the telecom industry ISDN 
eventually became known by several alternate names, one of which was 
Inventions Subscribers Don't Need (my favorite).


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:55 PM
Subject: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone



VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone
http://techdirt.com/articles/20060530/0032231.shtml


For way too long, most of the attention on VoIP has focused on how it's a 
cheaper telephone replacement option -- which a few people have pointed 
out is the wrong lesson to take from VoIP. Yes, it can provide cheaper 
calling, but the real value of VoIP is that it opens up the ability to add 
new and useful applications to voice communications. When looking for 
game-changing ideas, simply doing something cheaper tends not to be nearly 
as revolutionary as enabling something that couldn't have been done 
before. That's why it's been disappointing to see so many VoIP providers 
focus on price wars rather than offering something different. The good 
news is that we're starting to see some companies offer something 
different using VoIP. The disposable phone numbers idea seems more like a 
gimmick (though one that some folks might find useful). However, what's 
more interesting are the features the service is looking to add on top of 
the disposable numbers, such as the ability to offer specific content to 
callers. Who knows if this particular solution will catch on, but it's 
nice to see companies trying to provide something more than just a 
telephone replacement service when it comes to VoIP.


--


Regards,

Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect  Communicate
813.963.5884 http://4isps.com/newsletter.htm


--
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] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS

2006-06-20 Thread Rich Comroe
It was my impression that most of the US has unmetered local  US long 
distance available for $60 ... something / month.  I do.  To save $100 to 
$2000 per month on long distance with VoIP would mean they'd have to be 
paying the subscriber money back


Out of that $60/month phone bill, the phone company has to pay federal 
assessments that the VoIP provider doesn't.  Level that (which will 
ultimately happen) and they'll cost roughly the same monthly.  I'm not 
seeing the savings.  In what region of the US are ordinary residential 
customers paying $100 or more on typical long distance? (and I'd argue 
typical long distance is within US).  Is $60/mo unmetered local  long 
distance not available?


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS



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

Businesses don't care about voip here because long distance rates are so 
cheap that some of them would actually increase their costs by moving to 
voip.


They are? Our customers are saving anywhere from $100 to $2,000 per month 
on long distance with our VoIP service.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone

2006-06-20 Thread Rich Comroe
But then it is to business, not necessarily resi, which it is about 
dial-tone.


We've reached agreement!  I agree completely.  I missed where your comments 
were defined towards business customers.  Wisps that I work with serve 
predominantly residential customers, which was my 2 cents.  I know some of 
the wisps here target business markets.  Nothing wrong with that, and IMO 
it's a more profitable market to serve, too.


BTW, most all of the same features you cite have been available with ISDN 
for years before VoIP without gaining any traction with business customers 
whatsoever.  Tried ISDN myself for a few years.  Like everything else, I 
wanted to have my own hands-on experience with it ... and then dropped it 
after a few years going back to analog POTS!


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone


I beg to differ... Find-me/follow-me, Outlook Integration, Billing Platform 
Integration, video phone, do not disturb, call logs, distributed call 
centers, IVR, and the list goes on VoIP is actually more than a phone. 
But then it is to business, not necessarily resi, which it is about 
dial-tone. From experience, Caller ID, Call Forward and Voicemail are the 
most popular features, especially with so many SOHO.


- Peter

Rich Comroe wrote:

Nah.  It's just a phone.  Ordinary wired phones already offer more 
features than people want without VoIP.  Ordinary phone service typically 
offers you a list of 25 features.  People don't want em, so in my midwest 
Ameritech area (now ATT land) they typically throw in 5 features from 
the feature list for free.  Most people don't even want the 5 free 
features ... they're just nuisances.  There's a damn it, just take 'em 
attitude where the phone company now bundles several of the features into 
all local service whether you want 'em or not.


For the mass of the population it's simply about dial-tone  plain local 
/ long distance talk-time.  The phone companies learned to accept this. 
The same hype that it's more than replacing the phone used to be said 
about ISDN for 20 years (yes, ISDN *is* that old).  Not one advanced ISDN 
feature EVER became popular with consumers.  Within the telecom industry 
ISDN eventually became known by several alternate names, one of which was 
Inventions Subscribers Don't Need (my favorite).


Rich


--
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] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone

2006-06-20 Thread Rich Comroe
Business users, sure IP video conferencing is great.  I love it, and use it 
myself.  Residential: sure I've setup skype video-conferencing with other 
techie friends ... and then not turned it on again (everybody else I call 
just has an ordinary phone).  Ya'never'know.  But I wouldn't wager any money 
that residential IP video conferencing is going to make any inroads.  Just 
my opinion.


On the multi-line steering you describe, I switched my phone service (again 
... seems like I keep switching it every 2 years) and they offered me free 
picks from the advanced feature list which includes distinctive ringing. 
Didn't really interest me.  But I'm sure the multi-line feature you're 
describing would appeal to some (especially small business where you don't 
want phones ringing on every desk when the call is intended for one 
particular desk).  Problem is with most residential and most small business 
is that you may be anywhere in the facility (so you really *do* want all the 
phones to ring so you can pick-up anywhere).  Again, just my opinion.


I don't see any VoIP killer-apps.  It's just a phone that is at the moment 
offered at a marginally lower price by IP providers that are not required to 
charge the same government assessments the the traditional providers are 
required to charge (at the moment).


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:41 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone



Rich

In general I would agree with you expect for two features, one is video.
Phones like the Grandstream GXV-3000 have are low cost with all the 
features

one would need. I am not saying this is there yet as its not plug and play
but it's a step in the right direction.
Also the second is incoming lines, I do not see this offered that much as 
a
feature but its there. One VoIP phone can handle lots on incoming lines 
when
setup with a provider that offers It. This is very cool as one can have 
one
phone number with 4 lines coming in each going to its own ext. This setup 
on

standard pots would cost much more then VoIP, so you get more features and
save $$ at the same time :)

Tony

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rich Comroe
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 5:03 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone

Nah.  It's just a phone.  Ordinary wired phones already offer more 
features
than people want without VoIP.  Ordinary phone service typically offers 
you

a list of 25 features.  People don't want em, so in my midwest Ameritech
area (now ATT land) they typically throw in 5 features from the feature
list for free.  Most people don't even want the 5 free features ... 
they're
just nuisances.  There's a damn it, just take 'em attitude where the 
phone

company now bundles several of the features into all local service whether
you want 'em or not.

For the mass of the population it's simply about dial-tone  plain local /
long distance talk-time.  The phone companies learned to accept this.  The
same hype that it's more than replacing the phone used to be said about
ISDN for 20 years (yes, ISDN *is* that old).  Not one advanced ISDN 
feature

EVER became popular with consumers.  Within the telecom industry ISDN
eventually became known by several alternate names, one of which was
Inventions Subscribers Don't Need (my favorite).

Rich

- Original Message -
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:55 PM
Subject: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone



VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone
http://techdirt.com/articles/20060530/0032231.shtml


For way too long, most of the attention on VoIP has focused on how it's a
cheaper telephone replacement option -- which a few people have pointed
out is the wrong lesson to take from VoIP. Yes, it can provide cheaper
calling, but the real value of VoIP is that it opens up the ability to 
add



new and useful applications to voice communications. When looking for
game-changing ideas, simply doing something cheaper tends not to be 
nearly



as revolutionary as enabling something that couldn't have been done
before. That's why it's been disappointing to see so many VoIP providers
focus on price wars rather than offering something different. The good
news is that we're starting to see some companies offer something
different using VoIP. The disposable phone numbers idea seems more like a
gimmick (though one that some folks might find useful). However, what's
more interesting are the features the service is looking to add on top of
the disposable numbers, such as the ability to offer specific content to
callers. Who knows if this particular solution will catch on, but it's
nice to see companies trying to provide something more than just a
telephone replacement service

Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone

2006-06-20 Thread Rich Comroe
grinIt Still Doesn't Work would be ISDW!/grin  Got a chuckle out of 
your reply but I get your meaning.  Asked the question, What is ISDN, the 
answer you're thinking of is I Still Don't Know.  I'm sure that's the one 
you were thinking of.  Got'ta love ISDN.


I actually tried it for awhile.  In my near-Chicago suburb I ordered it, the 
phone company tried for 10 weeks to make it work (unsuccessfully) because 
the local office and technicians obviously had no experience with it 
whatsoever (secret meaning: I was the first in my area to have ever ordered 
ISDN service!).  Ultimately I had to debug the service myself (and then tell 
the phone company how to fix it).  It was pretty depressing to go through 
the exercise ... no wonder the phone company couldn't sell ISDN service. 
Then there was the incident when an A band destination that I maintained a 
constant connection to had an equipment failure and kept disconnecting, 
while my equipment kept reconnecting.  Unmetered still had a $0.03 (3 cent) 
connection charge, and my next months bill was $800!!! Got a MUD report and 
it listed roughly 30,000 connections!  The other party kicked in to cover 
half of my phone bill since it was their equipment failure which caused the 
problem.


ISDN ... got'ta love it ... not!
Rich

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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone



Hahaha my favorite was It Still Doesn't Work (ISDN).

Travis
Microserv


Rich Comroe wrote:

Nah.  It's just a phone.  Ordinary wired phones already offer more 
features than people want without VoIP.  Ordinary phone service typically 
offers you a list of 25 features.  People don't want em, so in my midwest 
Ameritech area (now ATT land) they typically throw in 5 features from 
the feature list for free.  Most people don't even want the 5 free 
features ... they're just nuisances.  There's a damn it, just take 'em 
attitude where the phone company now bundles several of the features into 
all local service whether you want 'em or not.


For the mass of the population it's simply about dial-tone  plain local 
/ long distance talk-time.  The phone companies learned to accept this. 
The same hype that it's more than replacing the phone used to be said 
about ISDN for 20 years (yes, ISDN *is* that old).  Not one advanced ISDN 
feature EVER became popular with consumers.  Within the telecom industry 
ISDN eventually became known by several alternate names, one of which was 
Inventions Subscribers Don't Need (my favorite).


Rich

- Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:55 PM
Subject: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone



VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone
http://techdirt.com/articles/20060530/0032231.shtml


For way too long, most of the attention on VoIP has focused on how it's 
a cheaper telephone replacement option -- which a few people have 
pointed out is the wrong lesson to take from VoIP. Yes, it can provide 
cheaper calling, but the real value of VoIP is that it opens up the 
ability to add new and useful applications to voice communications. When 
looking for game-changing ideas, simply doing something cheaper tends 
not to be nearly as revolutionary as enabling something that couldn't 
have been done before. That's why it's been disappointing to see so many 
VoIP providers focus on price wars rather than offering something 
different. The good news is that we're starting to see some companies 
offer something different using VoIP. The disposable phone numbers idea 
seems more like a gimmick (though one that some folks might find 
useful). However, what's more interesting are the features the service 
is looking to add on top of the disposable numbers, such as the ability 
to offer specific content to callers. Who knows if this particular 
solution will catch on, but it's nice to see companies trying to provide 
something more than just a telephone replacement service when it comes 
to VoIP.


--


Regards,

Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect  Communicate
813.963.5884 http://4isps.com/newsletter.htm


--
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] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone

2006-06-20 Thread Rich Comroe
That was my experience exactly!  Finally used my own protocol analyzer (my 
PC) and saw each Q931 request being auto-repeated before the first D channel 
acks came back (there was nearly a SECOND of D channel delay!!).  At that 
point it was obvious and I had the phone technicians switch me from a 
supposedly ISDN capable brand new fiber line unit to an old SLIC96 they had 
available and the problem immediately went away (and my phone started 
working).  Ahhh, the good old days...


You're right ... the phone company tech's had no idea how to make it work 
(or trouble shoot their own equipment).  Worse yet, the Ameritech 
technicians had been issued ISDN capable CAT box's that were oblivious to D 
channel delay (so they were swearing it was working because their test box 
said it was working).


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Blake Bowers [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone



Thats because ISDN really stands for I Still Don't No...

Back in the 80's when Bellsouth introduced it in Nashville, the techs had 
to make repeated stops

at my house to finally get it going.  Probably 20 of them.

Bellsouth introduced it, without bothering to show their
employees how to make it work.  Still, it was lots
better than 2400 baud to access FIDONET



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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone



Hahaha my favorite was It Still Doesn't Work (ISDN).

Travis
Microserv




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality

2006-06-20 Thread Rich Comroe



why do you do it?

I'm a top poster. I hate having to 
essentially re-read the previous email to find the added reply comments 
(especially when it's a long email and you ultimately just find an added "yeah 
me too" way down at the bottom). I find that incredibly annoying. I 
prefer replies where you pick-out what you're replying to and copy it to the top 
along with your reply. Concise. The originals are all there below 
for reference if you want them, but you don't have to scroll down to find the 
reply. You can more clearly see the chain of replies too(when each 
reply edits the same body, it quickly becomes impossible).

I know it's a religious preference / argument and 
there's no right or wrong, only a preference... but youwanted to 
know"why", so ...

peace
Rich

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Mark Koskenmaki 
  
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:17 
PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
  Against Net Neutrality
  
  You guys that post using this incredibly annoying 
  bar at the left... why do you do it? It makes c 
  onversational email impossible...
  
  Read on below. comments are prefaced 
  with 
  
  
  North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061personal correspondence 
  to: mark at neofast dot netsales inquiries to: purchasing at 
  neofast dot netFast Internet, NO 
  WIRES!-
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
David Sovereen 
To: WISPA General List 
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:37 
PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
Against Net Neutrality

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

 I don't see the 
problem with content companies and subscribers having equal access to each 
other. That, after all... IS WHAT I PROVIDE!

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

 Me too, but this has 
little to do with net neutrality, since peer to peer sharing involves 
HOSTING, and that I specifically don't generally allow. Terms of 
Service has covered hosting forever - since long before Napster was 
someone's dream. 

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

 I will eventually, 
and I will be entirely neutral as to whose servers it goes to...after 
all, if I can't serve my customer's needs, then what the heck am 
I? A fraud? 

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

 Yeah. Me 
too. Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with limiting 
access to content. 

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

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

Net neutrality takes these controls 
away.

 I seriously doubt 
that. 

Dave

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

[EMAIL PROTECTED]www.mercury.net

129 Ashman St, Midland, MI 48640

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Larry Yunker 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General 
  List 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:56 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In 
  Against Net Neutrality
  The WCA is showing its true colors.. the WCA stands 
  for the interests of Verizon, ATT Wireless, Sprint, and the other 
  big Cell Carriers (many of which incidentally are owned by ATT, 
  Bell South, and Verizon RBOCs). With statements like this, I 
  don't believe that the WCA will ever be looking out for the interests 
  unlicensed WISPs.If you think that blocking net neutrality is the 
  path to "controlling your own network", you have missed the entire 
  point. Without effective net neutrality legislation, the RBOCs 
  and the CableCos will own the internet and tariff the hell out of the 
  traffic that flows through it. It will be one more nail in the 
  coffin of the mom-n-pop operator that can't afford to pay tariffs to 
  get their subscribers access to "premium" content. It will drive 
  the customers of small operators to switch to the RBOCs and CableCos 
  because those networks will be the only "fast" networks or the only 
  ones that have "access" to everything on the internet.- Larry 
 

Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone

2006-06-20 Thread Rich Comroe

Very cool.  I love gadgets too ... got'ta play with them all.


Rich, I don't agree.


But I've no idea what I said that you disagree with.  What I said was I 
don't see VoIP providing advanced services that the consumer marketplace as 
a whole is going to pick-up (for example, the way caller-id has ... 
everybody has it now).  What I believe the consumer marketplace wants is 
talk minutes (disagreeing with the post that started this thread ... which 
says VoIP is incorrectly competing as cheap minutes, while what they should 
be selling is advanced features).   Tony replied: what about IP 
video-conferencing or multiple numbers.  In the email you're disagreeing 
with I said: come on ... the general consumer isn't going to go for these in 
a big way.  Is this what you're disagreeing with, because you use these 
features?


I have a constant debate over how bright or technically savvy the average 
consumer is.  There's a lot of bright people.  But never make the mistake of 
presuming the people you deal with on the cutting-edge of broadband are 
representative of the general marketplace.  It ain't so.  It ain't even 
close.  The fact that you use these advanced features is great.  I bet a lot 
of people on this list do.  I do.  But a lot of the people on the list 
(especially those that work with residential consumers) can speak volumes 
from their experience.  And (I might add) I bet those that subscribe to 
wireless broadband may be closer to the cutting-edge than to the general 
population. (scarey).  Virtually everybody's got a phone.


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Jonathan Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:42 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone



Rich, I don't agree.  My Lingo service is $20 a line, unlimited calling to
Europe-US-Canada, and I use simultaneous ring to cell when I'm away, I use
voicemail-to-Email (instantaneous) when I'm at the office or away, and use
quite a few other features.  My ATT line was 3 times that and no Europe
(when you finally get the bill with universal sevice fees, taxes, etc.).

I put my second line on Lingo...it's seldom used and pay $15 for 500 
minutes

which is rarely approached by even 1/2.

It's hard to beat.  And, I can take my tiny box to Budapest and have my 
home

phone in the Kempinski hotel room.  But, I don't have to because of
simultaneous ring to my Skype-in number.  Maybe it's just the fun of
somebody who grew up before the Carterphone decision.

. . . j o n a t h a n

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rich Comroe
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 6:00 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone

Business users, sure IP video conferencing is great.  I love it, and use 
it

myself.  Residential: sure I've setup skype video-conferencing with other
techie friends ... and then not turned it on again (everybody else I call
just has an ordinary phone).  Ya'never'know.  But I wouldn't wager any 
money


that residential IP video conferencing is going to make any inroads.  Just
my opinion.

On the multi-line steering you describe, I switched my phone service 
(again

... seems like I keep switching it every 2 years) and they offered me free
picks from the advanced feature list which includes distinctive ringing.
Didn't really interest me.  But I'm sure the multi-line feature you're
describing would appeal to some (especially small business where you don't
want phones ringing on every desk when the call is intended for one
particular desk).  Problem is with most residential and most small 
business
is that you may be anywhere in the facility (so you really *do* want all 
the


phones to ring so you can pick-up anywhere).  Again, just my opinion.

I don't see any VoIP killer-apps.  It's just a phone that is at the moment
offered at a marginally lower price by IP providers that are not required 
to


charge the same government assessments the the traditional providers are
required to charge (at the moment).

Rich

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:41 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] VoIP Is About More Than Replacing The Phone



Rich

In general I would agree with you expect for two features, one is video.
Phones like the Grandstream GXV-3000 have are low cost with all the
features
one would need. I am not saying this is there yet as its not plug and 
play

but it's a step in the right direction.
Also the second is incoming lines, I do not see this offered that much as
a
feature but its there. One VoIP phone can handle lots on incoming lines
when
setup with a provider that offers It. This is very cool as one can have
one
phone number with 4 lines coming in each going to its own ext. This setup
on
standard pots would cost much more then VoIP, so you get more features

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-06-13 Thread Rich Comroe

Nah.  What Charles misses in his commentary


But all the fancy schmancy technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless
3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area
(including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for
breakfast, lunch  dinner =(


is that a band doesn't need to be licensed to insure that a technology is 
only competing with like technology.  All the FCC would have to do to make 
Charles presumption all wet is to only type accept 3650 products compliant 
to a common spec.  Unless I'm mistaken, there aren't any GPS-synced FM-based 
FSK friends in the 3650 band.  As long as the rules only type accept a 
common interference avoidance spec (or a contention spec as many call it), 
then unlicensed systems in the same band play nice.


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 2:29 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 
3.65
product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am 
in
complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and 
utility

of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I
support essentially splitting the band.

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

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Hi Patrick,

But all the fancy schmancy technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless
3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area
(including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for
breakfast, lunch  dinner =(

-Charles

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



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.

Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other 
factors
are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e 
version

of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base
station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a 
SIM

card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and
you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


3.5Ghz does,


I find that hard to believe.  2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely 
on


900Mhz.

What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task?

With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP 
or

mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed.

Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: jeffrey thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment



The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed
service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.

5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors

3.5Ghz does, to portable devices similar to the equipment used by
clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works
indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO.

When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above
availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment.
At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the
ones in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced.

-

Jeff



On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, Tom DeReggi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

How do you figure?
You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: Jeffrey Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


 Frankly,

 The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the
 industry
 to
 really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found
 is
 that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will 

Wierd ... was [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-06-13 Thread Rich Comroe

My appologies to the list.

I'd added a couple cents to a thread that had ended weeks ago.  Wierd, but 
my email client just pulled about 30 emails today on these old threads as if 
they were new.  I'm reading along ... and this thread looks familiar ... and 
only after sending a reply to one of them did I notice Patrick had penned 
that mail back on May 26th.  Wierder yet is that I'd completely failed to 
notice that the 30 or so old emails were almost all old posts from Patrick 
that were several weeks old, with a couple from Brad that were about a week 
old.  Don't know if the server hosting my mailbox did a drive restore that 
ressurected old mail or whether anyone else got a copies of old mail too. 
Has this ever happened to anyone else?


With dozens of email arrivals on the thread 3650 equipment and This is 
HUGE! I thought that these topics had reborn again!  :-)  My mistake.


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment



Nah.  What Charles misses in his commentary

But all the fancy schmancy technology you implement won't do @#$@ 
unless

3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area
(including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for
breakfast, lunch  dinner =(


is that a band doesn't need to be licensed to insure that a technology is 
only competing with like technology.  All the FCC would have to do to 
make Charles presumption all wet is to only type accept 3650 products 
compliant to a common spec.  Unless I'm mistaken, there aren't any 
GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends in the 3650 band.  As long as the rules 
only type accept a common interference avoidance spec (or a contention 
spec as many call it), then unlicensed systems in the same band play nice.


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 2:29 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 
3.65
product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am 
in
complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and 
utility

of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I
support essentially splitting the band.

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

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Hi Patrick,

But all the fancy schmancy technology you implement won't do @#$@ 
unless

3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area
(including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for
breakfast, lunch  dinner =(

-Charles

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



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.

Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other 
factors
are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e 
version
of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the 
base
station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a 
SIM
card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation 
and

you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


3.5Ghz does,


I find that hard to believe.  2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely 
on


900Mhz.

What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task?

With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP 
or

mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed.

Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: jeffrey thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment



The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed
service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.

5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS

Re: [WISPA] Atheros 5213 PCI Card Keeps Breaking

2006-06-02 Thread Rich Comroe



Couldn't say for sure, but I have a suspicion - 
static discharge in the antenna. Worked on Canopy at Motorola. At 
one time they used an antenna coupling circuit that was highly static sensitive 
(at the antenna). They reworked the antenna couplingto make it less 
succeptible. If these cards are not explicitly designed for outdoor use 
then I'd suspect this. When the antenna coupler pops you get a high 
insertion loss to the antenna (power going in or out suffers). This seems 
to fit your symptoms. I'm not a ham, and don't have any suggestions on how 
to reduce the potential for static discharge in the antenna to pop an antenna 
coupler on the board.But I'd check ifthe antenna mount is 
grounded to the same ground as the radio board.

Rich

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kelly 
  Shaw 
  To: 'WISPA General List' 
  Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 3:56 PM
  Subject: [WISPA] Atheros 5213 PCI Card 
  Keeps Breaking
  
  I'm running a 
  StarOS Wrap Combo with an Atheros 5213 PCI card at one of my 
  POPs.
  
  When the slightest 
  thunderstorm comes through, I lose this card. For some reason or another 
  it's output drops severely and only my closest clients can connect. I go 
  from a -65 signal to -85+ on my closest client. My tower has never had a 
  direct hit through all of this. 
  
  The WRAP board 
  appears to be working just fine and I can access the STAROS program just 
  fine. 
  
  A replacement of 
  the radio card brings things back to normal. 
  
  I have a surge 
  suppressor in-line with only 10 feet of LMR-400 to my antenna. 
  
  
  Could my problem 
  be that my ground is shoddy? 
  
  I've been through 
  4 of these cards in the past year because of this and can't figure it 
  out.
  
  Once these storms 
  go through tonight, I am thinking about filing down my ground connection to 
  the tower to ensure a better contact surface. 
  
  Kelly 
  Shaw
  Pure Internet, 
  Inc.
  www.pure.net
  
  

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

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

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


Re: [WISPA] merchant accounts/credit cards

2006-05-31 Thread Rich Comroe

I use PayPal and am very happy.


I originally used PayPal and was forced to switch to a merchant e-account. 
Too many orders from countries where PayPal didn't serve.



Oh and by
the way people do not have to be PayPal members to post payments.


Too many orders lost from customers that don't have PayPal accounts (unless 
things changed in the last 2 years since I switched to e-account, but way 
back you had to setup a PayPal account to make a purchase).


Too many orders lost from customers that refused to use PayPal.  Too much 
time spent providing customers with bank transfer info that couldn't or 
wouldn't use PayPal.  It was a wonderful relief the moment I left PayPal 
behind and had direct credit card clearing from mastercard or visa.


Vendor recommendations?  I'll admit I didn't shop independently.  Our 
hosting service provided e-commerce with MIVA Merchant, and enabled credit 
card clearing with LinkPoint CSI.  Works great.


Rich

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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 3:14 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] merchant accounts/credit cards


I do not have a terminal and do not need to

swipe cards from here. Their rates for non-eBay items seem to be in line
with others. I have full control over my account and even have a Master 
Card

debit card from them. Simple and painless and I don't have to maintain any
secure web sites to accept payment. Your needs may be different. Oh and by
the way people do not have to be PayPal members to post payments.



Thank You,
Brian Webster

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 3:40 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] merchant accounts/credit cards


Can anybody suggest any good vendors for a merchant account and card
processing
terminal?

Thanks


Dan Metcalf
Wireless Broadband Systems
www.wbisp.com
781-566-2053 ext 6201
1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.0/352 - Release Date: 05/30/2006


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] merchant accounts/credit cards

2006-05-31 Thread Rich Comroe
Looks like they've definitely made some major improvements since I used them 
for my online store long ago.  What about the supported countries?  I was 
always getting emails from customers from African countries I'd never even 
heard of that couldn't place their orders thru paypals.


cheers,
Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] merchant accounts/credit cards



On Wed, 31 May 2006, Rich Comroe wrote:

Too many orders lost from customers that don't have PayPal accounts 
(unless things changed in the last 2 years since I switched to e-account, 
but way back you had to setup a PayPal account to make a purchase).


Paypal has a terminal available that allows you to process MasterCard, 
Visa, Discover and American Express.  I believe those are all included in 
their terminal (haven't needed the Discover or AE, yet).  It will handle 
debit and credit cards.  Rates are very reasonable for what I personally 
use it for.  I don't do a lot of credit card processing, either.


Too many orders lost from customers that refused to use PayPal. Too much 
time spent providing customers with bank transfer info that couldn't or 
wouldn't use PayPal.


The customer never knows it was processed through PayPal.  I take the card 
number and other information (via the virtual terminal), and it is 
processed.  It shows up on your credit card bill as a purchase from Butch 
Evans Consulting.  Unless I tell you, you'd never know that's who I used.


--
Butch Evans
Network Engineering and Security Consulting
http://www.butchevans.com/
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
(http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html)
--
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] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-25 Thread Rich Comroe
The problem is, in a democracy full of special interests, how does one 
determine fairly what that compatibilty standard should be?


You got it.  In a democracy full of special interests, who decides?
It depends on the charter of who is organizing the standard and who the 
participants are.


The 802.11 standard comes courtesy of ieee.  I don't know their rules.

Our Internet standards come from the IETF which is a democracy of volunteer 
technical individuals, companies and governments have little to no influence 
(this is good).


Consortia and industry organizations in the US (like TIA) tend to give 
over-consideration to manufacturer participants ... those that build the 
equipment.  I'd bet the WiMAX forum is in this category, where it likely 
only really represents the manufacturers and a collection of dominant 
carriers who have chosen to participate.


These are exactly the reasons some Industry associations of USERS host their 
own standard setting groups (like APCO and I believe CTIA) where basically 
they're issueing a statement of what they want Manufacturers to build.  Of 
course manufacturers participate, trying to steer the outcome to what they 
want to build, but users org standards groups tend to (by their own rules) 
give greater voice to volunteer users that choose to participate.  I've 
participated in innumerable standard setting groups, for manufacturer 
organizations and user organizations.  Chaired many of the groups, too. 
Fascinating when a group of participants attempt to come to a concensus on 
anything.  The output is only as important as the unity of voice with which 
the organization speaks (for example, few public safety agencies in this 
country choose to purchase and deploy any wireless system that does not have 
APCO's seal of compliance to APCO user issued standards).  In their market 
APCO speaks for the buying power of the public safety users (as I believe 
does CTIA).


Democracy, got'ta love it  hate it at the same time.
Rich

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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 2:13 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update



You bring up an interesting point, comparing to GSM..
The problem is, in a democracy full of special interests, how does one 
determine fairly what that compatibilty standard should be?
One of the Reasons WiMax still is not deployed, while non-standards 
product are flourishing.
Is it better to get it done, or get it done right but while trying end up 
never getting it done?


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-24 Thread Rich Comroe
 was) is even worse.


The USA isn't quickly adapting broadband for several reasons.  One is that 
the consumer just doesn't value it enough.  If broadband was available at 
$75 per connection instead of $30 there would be much more of it out 
there. But people aren't willing (in large enough numbers) to pay more for 
broadband than for dialup or no internet at all.


In other countries they've typically had comparatively substandard 
networks. They are now building to catch up and naturally that building is 
with the latest gear.  Here we have cheap access to phones, cell phones, 
TV, etc. That's not always the case elsewhere.


It's funny.  I thought that getting the local businesses on broadband 
would help me sell more of it.  People would use it at work and want it at 
home too right?  Wrong.  They just do all of their stuff at work and 
sometimes cancel even the dialup!


Market forces are best left alone.  But steps do need to be taken to make 
sure that the playing field is level and that practical considerations 
(like roi) are not totally ignored.


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



- Original Message - 
From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update


It's quite unfortunate IMO but I've concluded that this is a typically 
American problem.  In America the courts broke up the Bell system 
thinking that it'd be better for the average American to have local phone 
companies competing with each other.  Only here in America does the FCC 
license any technology the carriers wishes to deploy, resulting in them 
competing with each other (whatever technology cellphone you carry, there 
are more towers of different technology that any given cellphone can't 
access compared to those it).  Europe learned almost 2 decades ago that 
to compete with the United States they needed to mandate compatible 
technologies that would insure interoperable services to users (things 
like GSM).


For the benefit of all, I wish the FCC would open any/all new bands (3.6, 
5.4 thru 5.7, etc) mandating a compatible technical solution, or at 
minimum one that required all equipment to play nice.


Nobody wants to through away the investment that they have made already, 
and as that investment increases, it gets harder.


Right.  Too much of a hardship to change rules in bands once deployed. 
But all new bands should require compatability rules.  I just don't see 
our FCC seeing things this way.  There are too many that believe a 
free-for-all in the market serves the public best.  I don't agree.


Rich

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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update



Steve,

In theory, I fully agree with your view.

The problem is that theory does not always play out in the real world. 5 
years later, I still have 10 mbps gear, and very few places that can 
risk using faster gear. (although we are finding ways, such as getting 
higher power with PtP to use faster gear reliably, of course we are also 
wasting spectrum because channels used up with only some of the 
bandwdith being used, not being able to average its use over PtMP.)


The problem is that the longer the FCC waits to impose better rules, the 
harder it gets for the industry to accept the rules. Nobody wants to 
through away the investment that they have made already, and as that 
investment increases, it gets harder.


The problem with the rules as they are now, true Darwinism, is that it 
forces WISPs to be in competition with WISPs, instead of WISPs bandwdith 
togeather to be in competitions with other industry segments like Telcos 
and Cable companies.  And the inner struggle forces WISPS to be less 
competitive as an industry in the end.  This can not be a good thing for 
an industry, allthough it may be most ethical for evolutionists.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Steve Stroh [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:04 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update




Patrick:

I disagree that the market is (directly) rewarding survival of the
nastiest - it's rewarding systems that are designed to survive in a 
mixed
environment. If that behavior is perceived as nasty by systems that 
are

less robust, oh well.

But there's a tradeoff - systems whose primary feature is survivability
will eventually fall out of favor because their performance will not be
acceptable and the users of such systems won't be able to sell services
based

Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-24 Thread Rich Comroe
Marlon, I think I can appreciate most everything you've said.  I can only 
add to each of your points, while accepting your input, why I think that 
your (and my) life would be better if we had some more constructive 
requirements in the wisp market than anything that fits the transmit mask.


It's interesting that you should bring up a 30 YEAR old technology as a 
good example for an equipment life standards discussion.  hehehehehe


It was just an example of how FATALLY flawed the change to let the market 
decide between generation I cellular (analog) and generation II cellular 
(first generation digital cellular) was, and we've all paid dearly for it 
(whether most people know it or not).  It was the blanket assertion that 
No-Darwinism is necessarily worse than Darwinism and to be rejected 
out-of-hand.


US manufacturers are free to choose who and what they want!  It's working 
perfectly.


I think you meant carriers or providers in the above.  Where GSM rules 
apply (that's most of the world) service is seamless ... it's the best world 
for the customers.  Since wisps business as service providing is mostly 
fixed, I'll grant you that seamless is not a meaningful advantage.  But 
consider this.  As a service provider in the GSM world all brands of GSM 
equipment are interchangable.  From a service provider perspective you can 
get the best equipment prices (because there's more choices of suppiers). 
From the manufacturer, they can sell the same equipment world-wide, so they 
build in higher volume.  From a manufacturer perspective I know this 
inherently, but service providers should all know that the volume a 
manufacturer produces has a higher impact than anything else on 
manufacturing cost (and thus selling price).  Equipment manufacturers  
providers who build  deploy GSM enjoy significantly lower equipment cost. 
So let's try this again:


US manufacturers are free to choose who and what they want!  It's working 
perfectly.


If working perfectly means you don't care that the equipment costs more 
because of the free-for-all and you've no protection from destructive 
interworking, then I accept it's working perfectly!



We'll see.  That's what the FCC just did with 3650.


Agreed.  I'm hopeful that this was a good move.

And lets be real here eh?  No matter how good something we do is, much of 
Europe will do it differently just because we did it first.


Not quite the point.  I don't care what Europe does either.  More countries 
on this planet now choose to establish rules compatible with ETSI than with 
the US FCC (that's another big part of what the cellular free-for-all here 
cost us).  THAT was my point.  Look at the manufacturers that you buy your 
wisp equipment from.  They are charging you for equipment that they can only 
build for US markets and the few countries left on the planet that accept US 
FCC wireless rules (not too many).  Imagine how much less it might cost you 
if they could manufacturer in the greater volume to sell to all markets.


As for having ALL devices be wifi?  No thanks!  There are good things 
coming out of the proprietary market.


I agree, wasn't implying all devices have to be wifi.  Consider this 
example:  One of the middle bands at 5GHz is being opened for ANY 
technology, as long as they have a US DOT approved DFS (as I understand it). 
Could be 802.11, could be Canopy, could be anything ... as long as they all 
support the DFS so that they don't talk on the US military radar.  This is 
what I understood ETSI to have set for the 5GHz RLAN bands (in most 
countries on the planet) ... doesn't have to be hyperlan2, as long as they 
all support TPC  DFS.  Where do you think 5.4 Canopy has been shipping for 
some time already?  A couple organizing standard requirements doesn't mean 
everybody has to deploy the exact same technology, but it could make 
everybody's life a whole lot better.  This is what I suggested under the 
term middle ground ... in your terms somewhere costructively between 
Pure-Darwinism and No-Darwinism as you put it.


What made beta better than VHS? Certainly part of what made VHS better was 
the availability.


Sony designed Beta, but intended to be the only supplier (Proprietary).  VHS 
was successful because of the availability, because of the consortium of 
companies who all agreed to support a common design.  VHS won precisely 
because of the standard (the availability as you put it).  When Sony came 
out with their next format (8mm) they made sure they offered the design to 
a consortium of companies who would agree to support a compatible design, 
which is why 8mm was succesful ... a 180 from their previous (Beta) 
position.  Japanese learned fast.  World 3rd generation cellular standards 
are a battleground between Japan and Europe (US design is not even a 
contender, but US manufacturers try to feed their inputs to both Japan and 
Europe standards bodies ... but we're the outsiders in both venues).


Technically?  Maybe Beta 

Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-21 Thread Rich Comroe
It's quite unfortunate IMO but I've concluded that this is a typically 
American problem.  In America the courts broke up the Bell system thinking 
that it'd be better for the average American to have local phone companies 
competing with each other.  Only here in America does the FCC license any 
technology the carriers wishes to deploy, resulting in them competing with 
each other (whatever technology cellphone you carry, there are more towers 
of different technology that any given cellphone can't access compared to 
those it).  Europe learned almost 2 decades ago that to compete with the 
United States they needed to mandate compatible technologies that would 
insure interoperable services to users (things like GSM).


For the benefit of all, I wish the FCC would open any/all new bands (3.6, 
5.4 thru 5.7, etc) mandating a compatible technical solution, or at minimum 
one that required all equipment to play nice.


Nobody wants to through away the investment that they have made already, 
and as that investment increases, it gets harder.


Right.  Too much of a hardship to change rules in bands once deployed.  But 
all new bands should require compatability rules.  I just don't see our FCC 
seeing things this way.  There are too many that believe a free-for-all in 
the market serves the public best.  I don't agree.


Rich

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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update



Steve,

In theory, I fully agree with your view.

The problem is that theory does not always play out in the real world. 5 
years later, I still have 10 mbps gear, and very few places that can risk 
using faster gear. (although we are finding ways, such as getting higher 
power with PtP to use faster gear reliably, of course we are also wasting 
spectrum because channels used up with only some of the bandwdith being 
used, not being able to average its use over PtMP.)


The problem is that the longer the FCC waits to impose better rules, the 
harder it gets for the industry to accept the rules. Nobody wants to 
through away the investment that they have made already, and as that 
investment increases, it gets harder.


The problem with the rules as they are now, true Darwinism, is that it 
forces WISPs to be in competition with WISPs, instead of WISPs bandwdith 
togeather to be in competitions with other industry segments like Telcos 
and Cable companies.  And the inner struggle forces WISPS to be less 
competitive as an industry in the end.  This can not be a good thing for 
an industry, allthough it may be most ethical for evolutionists.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Steve Stroh [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:04 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update




Patrick:

I disagree that the market is (directly) rewarding survival of the
nastiest - it's rewarding systems that are designed to survive in a 
mixed

environment. If that behavior is perceived as nasty by systems that are
less robust, oh well.

But there's a tradeoff - systems whose primary feature is survivability
will eventually fall out of favor because their performance will not be
acceptable and the users of such systems won't be able to sell services
based on that lower level of performance.

My Darwinian Effect of License-exempt Wireless encompasses not just the
technological evolution of license-exempt systems, but also the economic
evolution of license-exempt systems. It's not enough to be merely more
survivable - there's an intense ECONOMIC imperative to be
better-performing, more cost-effective... otherwise the systems won't get
bought.

We've seen what happens to systems that are survivable but don't evolve
their performance - two that immediately come to mind are RadioLAN and
Airdata WIMAN; both were very robust, but didn't offer competitive
performance over time. Older product lines eventually fall victim to
newer, higher-performance, more cost-effective product lines... often 
from

entirely new vendors.

The beautiful thing about the ISM/UNII rules is that no one can be
EXCLUDED; you're permitted to TRY just about anything that follows the
relatively simple and basic rules. That's what enables the Darwinian
Effect. The risks are WELL known... at least they should be, by anyone
wanting to try to make a business using the ISM/UNII bands. If the risks
aren't to one's liking, well there's always the licensed alternative -
little technological risk, but huge economic risk from the cost of the
licenses.

Understood that the risk/reward of license-exempt spectrum might not be
high enough for the biggest players to make multi-million dollar
investments into license-exempt spectrum. But... the HUGE market means
that smaller players seem to keep being willing to try, and that more 
than

balances 

Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

2006-04-11 Thread Rich Comroe
Canopy will run with 3db of signal to noise separation, which is more 
robust than 802.11b


For signal levels typically found in deployed equipment this is not true,
nor has it ever been true.  The Canopy 3dB C/I is measured at stronger 
signal
than typical deployment (unless all your SMs have 20dB or more excess 
signal).

Canopy C/I is pretty much the same as all other technologies I'm aware of at
anywhere from typical to minimum signal levels.  This of course omits the 
high
constellation modulations which we all know requires significantly higher 
C/I.


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP


As a former Canopy user, I would like to point out a couple of issues not 
mentioned here.


1)  Canopy is limited to vertical polarity in PTMP deployments.  Trango 
and many other systems can be deployed in horizontal polarity, pretty much 
avoiding any Canopy in the area.
2)  Canopy systems will be more robust in comparison to other systems 
deployed at the same antenna gain and polarity, and they will also coexist 
nicely with other Canopy systems if they are all running GPS sync on the 
access points.  HOWEVER, non-synced Canopy causes other Canopy systems all 
kinds of problems, and other types of systems will take a Canopy system 
down if the other system has higher gain and runs on the same path. 
Canopy will run with 3db of signal to noise separation, which is more 
robust than 802.11b for example which needs 5-6db - but that doesn't make 
it immune to noise.  There are situations where the poor antenna design of 
the Canopy ends up getting more noise and will run worse than a better 
engineered 802.11b system.
It is easy to build a 2000lb elephant (legally, I will add) that will kick 
the 500lb gorilla's butt.  Been there, done that.  I'm glad I don't have 
to deal with Canopy any more.


Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Forrest W Christian wrote:

Richard Goodin wrote:
I have been planning my WISP for about a year, and have yet to begin 
delivery of bandwidth to customers.

Since Canopy hasn't been mentioned yet, I'll mention it.

You really can't go wrong with a canopy installation.  It works, even in 
the presence of noise that would kill other systems.  We swapped a dying 
(due to interference) Trango system with a canopy system well over a year 
ago and haven't looked back.   As customers on our existing 802.11b 
network have problems we just swap them to Canopy.


Some here will probably mention canopy's abusive spectrum use.   Yes, 
Motorola uses a very agressive modulation which both provides for 
incredible interference robustness, but unfortunately doesn't play very 
well with others.   Systems with marginal link budget will fail when put 
in the presence of a motorola radio.  I have heard this referred to as 
the 500 pound gorilla approach - I.E. where does a 500 pound gorilla set? 
Anywhere he wants to.   I find it hard to see this as a disavantage to 
the Canopy operator.  After all this is business, and you need to make 
decisions which improve your bottom line.


One more thing... you need to be very careful about FCC certification of 
systems.  Many of the systems which people put together themselves are 
not legal in the eyes of the FCC.  In short, buying a radio from vendor A 
and pairing it with an antenna from vendor B may or may not be legal, 
even if the EIRP limit is not exceeded.   Plus, you will have vendors 
(distributors mostly) which will lie to you about whether or not a given 
pair is legal.   Currently many WISP's are doing things which are 
definitely not legal under the rules, and count on the FCC's continued 
non-enforcement of the part-15 bands as part of their business plan.   As 
being an Amateur Radio operator and seeing what happens when the FCC 
decides to actually pursue enforcement in a band, I wouldn't want to tie 
my continued business survival to illegal equipment. -forrest


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Re: Interference with TV

2006-03-16 Thread Rich Comroe
I note some of the respondents are thinking satellite.  I'm thinking 10baseT 
or 100baseT bleeding into the household coax distribution.  Any chance the 
ethernet runs alongside the coax for any length somewhere within the home? 
With cable TV I've seen ethernet put interference on the screen for weak 
cable stations.  Since the sat dish is outside and we're talking wireless 
Internet coming in from outside too, any chance the ethernet is running 
along side the coax that feeds the inside satellite decoder?  That might be 
able to take out all TV.


Rich

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

To: webmaster [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bill Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: wireless@wispa.org; isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:02 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Re: Interference with TV



Anyone seen a problem like the one below before?

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



- Original Message - 
From: webmaster

To: Bill Dale
Cc: Marlon Schafer
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: Interference with TV


Hi Bill,

I am copying Marlon on this so he will reply as soon as possible.  He is 
out of the office today.  You could try calling him this evening on his 
cell number, 509-988-0260.


Mary Downey
Odessa Office/ACCIMA
509-982-2181
- Original Message - 
From: Bill Dale

To: Odessa Office Equip Support
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 8:41 AM
Subject: Interference with TV


   We have good internet speed most of the time and I am happy with my 
setup. Occasionally we loose the internet for some reason, and I have to 
shut off the power to the receiver. This always seems to reset everything. 
All in all we have been very happy, however lately we have been having a 
problem which seems to be getting worse as time goes by.
   Lately, our TV picture becomes pixilated and breaks up, and the sound 
is also disrupted. It seems to happen anytime. (maybe some program on the 
computer is accessing the internet?) If someone gets online the TV becomes 
so bad that at times it is unwatchable. This seems to have become 
progressively worse over the last two or three weeks. If I turn off the 
power to our internet antenna, then we have no problem with the TV at all, 
so I can only presume that the Internet antenna is disrupting the signal 
that our Dish Network antenna is receiving. The Dish Network antenna is a 
duel LNB antenna and this problem only occurs on certain channels, so 
maybe only one LNB is bothered by the internet antenna? Is the internet 
antenna failing and sending out interference? Is one of the LNB's on the 
Dish Network antenna failing, or is this just signal interference, and if 
so, how can we get rid of it?
   We would like to be able to use the internet at the same time that we 
are watching TV, so anything you can do to help me would be appreciated.

Thanks
Bill Dale
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-24 Thread Rich Comroe
Your comments couldn't be more appropriate.  I'm hearing 3rd hand that Moto 
just announced on webinar's today that their next firmware release (8.0) 
will no longer support compatibility with the original Canopy protocol, so 
original deployed equipment must be replaced.  Some unhappy comments 
appearing on the [Motorola] list.


Rich

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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:56 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment



Quoting Tom:

What often happens, is technical people
make these beautiful products from a technical point of view, but they are
worthless because they don't solve the problems that need to be solved for
its applications, which were the reasons for originally developing the
technology.

Man have you hot the nail on the head!  Motorola is a company that gets
caught in this all the time. I can't tell you how many times over the 
years
I went to product introduction seminars as a 2 way radio dealer and the 
lead

engineer would be touting all the cool wiz bang features of the new radio.
It would always happen where a dealer would stand up and ask does the 
radio

still do XYZ? They would get a glassy eyed stare and say no, that is old
technology and we did not include it in this model The follow up 
statement

from the dealer would be  do you realize that 80% of our customer base
still uses this technology, what do we tell them? and the engineer would
say  They will need to upgrade to the new technology. My take on this 
was
that they spent so much time patting themselves on the back in the lab 
with

their new toys that they never researched what the customer wanted and
needed to solve their communication problem. Typical Motorola attitude, 
they

will tell the customer what they need or what they will be
getting...They still have not learned this lesson...which is 
too

bad because they do have the ability to make great products and great
radios.


Brian

--
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/