Re: [WISPA] Note about the Noon Webinar....
I posted my initial impressions - http://www.wispnews.net/2008/02/alvarion-webina.html Thanks, Steve On Feb 13, 2008 10:21 AM, Patrick Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For those joining it (at noon Pacific Time), please log in 10 minutes > early to make sure your system can view the presentation. The Webinar > service we are using requires viewers to have Java running, so if you do > not have Java, then it will prompt you to click to install it. > > I am looking forward to this. So much content that heads will be > swimming. > > Regards, > > Patrick Leary > AVP, Market Development > Alvarion, Inc. > o: 650.314.2628 > c: 760.580.0080 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer > viruses(84). > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Steve Stroh Editor / Analyst, Stroh Publications LLC 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] [SPAM] One Ring Networks To Rollout New WiMAX Service
Slight correction: Mobile WiMAX profiles for 2.3 / 2.5 Fixed WiMAX profiles for 3.5 (non-US), but NOT 3.65 GHz in the US because of the unique "contention protocol" requirements (systems for 3.65 GHz should be considered proprietary and quite possibly non-interoperable). NO formal WiMAX profile, fixed (there will eventually be one) or mobile (there will never be one) for 5.x. While 5.x is in the 802.16d spec, the interoperability profile, testing, and certification of WiMAX Forum has yet to be taken up. Thanks, Steve On Jan 10, 2008 5:51 AM, Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I believe there are profiles for 2.3, 2.5, 3.4-3.8, and 5.x. > > -Matt -- Steve Stroh Editor / Analyst, Stroh Publications LLC 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] RADAR lockouts
I don't know the specifics, but all of the negotiations about changing the rules for 5.2 and adding 5.4 GHz was with the DOD, so I doubt those RADARs that you describe are the culprits. Thanks, Steve On Dec 11, 2007 8:10 PM, ralph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What RADAR is on 5.2 GHz? This would be C band, I think. > > I'm getting my first DFS lockouts and boy is it frustrating! > It is frustrating about the initial scan period and its frustrating when > channels lock out and disable. > > It was frustrating enough to make me temporarily go back to 5.8, which was > a > pity due to the shortness of the hop (1 mile). I have the radios at 5dBm > and > still have a -59 at each end! > As soon as I can have enough time allocated to run to the other end (very > difficult access Govt bldg) in case I screw up, I am going to try with the > power all the way down. > > The one end that looks towards an airport does get about 3 times the hits > as > the one looking away. > > RADARs I can think of are: > > Approach Control (not likely- I know where it is and its far away and on > 1.290 GHz) > WX RADAR on a plane at the airport > WX RADAR at a TV station (most of them have pooled them or gone to a > service > or located them away from town though) > Airport RADAR - this is the one on the tower I think and is for the > ground > ops and close in stuff. > > This airport is about 5-6 miles away. The most events (hundreds) are on > channels 116 and 124 with a few on the 50ish channels too. > > > Ralph > > PS- if you want to see what the bad news looks like when delivered, I have > some screen shots at: > > http://brightlan.net/radar.html > > > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Steve Stroh Editor / Analyst, Stroh Publications LLC 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650 PtMP vs. 2.4 PtMP
An experimental license allows you to test systems, spectrum, or techniques that otherwise aren't normally allowed. I know of a number of service providers that used their 3650 experimental licenses for commercial service. As I understand it, commercial operations aren't DISALLOWED by the Part 5 experimental license rules. What those rules DO state is that the Part 5 license doesn't give you any special preference whatsoever when the FCC deems that the period of your experimental license is up... like it would be now that the 3650 rules are set and commercial service is commencing. Those experimental deployments that I heard about were PMP for backhaul and for access for business customers; I haven't heard of any 3650 residential deployments, though that would be feasible using 3.5 Fixed WiMAX CPE that has been updated for 3650 rules. It was kept pretty quiet, except with the vendors that were supplying "experimentally compliant" 3650 gear, but there were MANY larger Broadband Wireless Internet Access Service Providers who used experimental licenses similar to Covad's rationale quoted in Dylan Oliver's message. While all those deployments had to be similarly couched in "yes, we acknowledge it's experimental..." language, they all used such systems for commercial, revenue service... THAT was the "experiment" - to see if it was feasible, economical, and reliable. It worked; looks like 3650 will be quite the success, especially with the mandated coordination / non-interference between competing service providers in urban areas. Thanks, Steve On Nov 19, 2007 12:39 PM, Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Those of that have using experimental licenses only got to test things > such as propagation. We where not allowed to provide commercial > services. Anyone who might have used their license incorrectly is > certainly not going to admit to it on a public list. Therefore, your > question cannot be answered. > > > -Matt > -- Steve Stroh Editor / Analyst, Stroh Publications LLC 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Provider hogging all 2.5 Spectrum?
Gino: No, there's no maximum amount of spectrum that one company can own in 2.5 GHz other than the rules for the "commercial" portions of the band and the "educational" parts of the band. Even that partitioning is pretty fluid when the licensees in the educational portion can lease their licenses to commercial entities like Sprint. In fact, it got more concentrated with the merger of SBC and BellSouth; the latter had some 2.5 GHz spectrum which it was required to sell off as part of the merger (BellSouth had a lot more 2.3 GHz spectrum)... and the 2.5 GHz spectrum went to Clearwire. Now Clearwire and Sprint are "horse trading" to rationalize their respective spectrum holdings in the markets that each has chosen to serve. For example, Sprint is trading its 2.5 GHz spectrum in Seattle to Clearwire, and Clearwire is trading its spectrum in other urban markets to Sprint. Also, there is no longer any limitation on how much cellular spectrum any one company can own. There was such a limitation at one time, but that limitation was gradually phased out. Thanks, Steve On 10/4/07, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey List, > > The local Sprint has bought 1 a local Clearwire-like provider, which > owned some 2.5 licenses and had Leases for others. Now Sprint is also > in negotiations to buy a local WISP who was Leases more 2.5 licenses > (Educational). Basically all 2.5 would be owned or leased by Sprint. > > Isn't there any FCC regulations that prevents a provider from owning all > spectrum in band? > > I know that limitations exists on Cell bands > > Gino A. Villarini > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -- Steve Stroh Editor / Analyst, Stroh Publications LLC 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Wimax World , anyone going?
I'll be there all three days. Thanks, Steve On 9/22/07, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Im going to Chicago next week for Wimax World, anyone else going? > > Gino A. Villarini > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -- Steve Stroh Editor / Analyst, Stroh Publications LLC 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 900MHz consumer items
It would be a very, very long page... Thanks, Steve On 9/20/07, John Valenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does anybody have a web page up that lists common consumers items > that interfere with unlicensed wireless? > > For instance, I mentioned a house that had something putting out a > -45 signal. I tracked that down to a wireless speaker system: > Acoustic Research AW811 http://www.araccessories.com/ARWireless.html > http://www.amazon.com/Acoustic-Research-AW-811-Outdoor-Wireless/dp/ > B000246U1C > > I think I'm able to work around this one, with a Trango on channel 3 > above it and a SR9 card on "channel 6" below it. -- Steve Stroh Editor / Analyst, Stroh Publications LLC 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Locustworld meshes?
Carl: Thanks :-) I rest my case. Steve On 9/14/07, Carl Shivers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We are using Meraki at a local ballpark, the zoo and a river walk area. The > ballpark has 1 gw node and 4 mesh nodes. The zoo has 1 gw and 1 mesh node. > The river walk area presently has 2 gw nodes and 8 mesh nodes. This will be > expanded to 3 gw nodes and 17 mesh nodes. > > It is very easy to deploy using the Meraki system dashboard. > > P.S. I am not a Meraki sales person. -- Steve Stroh Editor / Analyst, Stroh Publications LLC 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Locustworld meshes?
Japhy: Meraki kind of nuked 'em - http://meraki.com. Thanks, Steve On 9/14/07, Japhy Bartlett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > With all the discussion going on about the 900mhz meshes, I thought > I'd ask your opinion on the locustworld meshboxes. > > I'm still just exploring the options for a local non-profit sort of > setup, and it was one of the first things to come up when I was > Googling. It seems like they made a big splash a few years ago, and > it looks like they're still deploying new projects. But I haven't > seen anyone even mention it on this list, after a few months of > lurking. > > How come nobody seems to be using it? > > Japhy > > > ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at > ISPCON ** > ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** > ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** > ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** > ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at > http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Steve Stroh Editor / Analyst, Stroh Publications LLC 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
I echo Mike's contention that Canopy was developed directly for use by Broadband Wireless Internet Access Service Providers... but not necessarily the small, highly entrepreneurial Wireless ISPs. In my discussions with some key Canopy personnel over the years, some of whom were remarkably candid, some interesting things came out: * Canopy was originally designed to take advantage of the burgeoning demand for Broadband Internet Access in ulta-high-density markets such as China. For a variety of reasons, that market never actually materialized, but Motorola (barely) decided to continue Canopy anyway * Canopy was almost killed several times. One manager "fell on his sword" and retired prematurely as a result of his forceful, but successful lobbying to let Canopy emerge as a product * Motorola was eventually surprised at how well Canopy was received by the market. For some time Canopy was kept "at arm's length" within Motorola, which during that time Motorola barely acknowledged that Canopy was actually a Motorola product. Even after Motorola grudgingly embraced Canopy as an "official" product, there was at least one very serious attempt to "shop the Canopy division around" to other BWIA vendors. I heard this from several vendors who Motorola approached. * Part of Motorola's reluctance to embrace Canopy is that it cannibalized some of Motorola's system integration work to build public safety Broadband Wireless systems - Motorola was horrified when some public safety agencies actually deployed Canopy systems themselves (no lucrative systems integration contract)... on the (talk about unintended consequences) "reputation" that Canopy was a Motorola product. * Canopy was designed for very large deployments by those not necessarily highly skilled in RF issues - hence the one-piece unit. If a service provider "followed the Canopy deployment instructions scrupulously, it almost always worked. * Motorola KNEW, well in advance, that there would eventually be more 5 GHz spectrum made available in the US - what's now called the 5.4 GHz band, thus spectral efficiency wasn't an overriding criteria in Canopy's original design. * Canopy's three design criteria were that it be simple to deploy, robust and reliable in operation, and cheap to manufacture and sell. Deep down, Canopy's modulation is (pretty much, kind of) FM, adapted for Broadband and Digital operation. (Yes, I know this is probably technically inaccurate and horribly oversimplified, but that's the way it was described as the genesis of Canopy's modulation scheme - it was based on the robustness of FM communicaitons, of which Motorola is a world class expert. * The 2.4 GHz and 902-928 MHz versions of Canopy were purely an afterthought, not part of the original plans for Canopy; both were developed only in response to large deployments who needed the frequency diversity and the penetration characteristics of 902-928 MHz. Thanks, Steve On 9/13/07, Mike Hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Canopy was not initially developed for the military. It was built ground up > for WISPs. When it was designed, it was the best that there was, but > internal issues kept it from the market for a few years. During that time, > the market changed and Moto could no longer count on some of the things they > had when they designed it. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com -- Steve Stroh Editor / Analyst, Stroh Publications LLC 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] The MOBL Sage (Warning: Long Post)
Allen: No corrections - you got it right about Sprint's fixed MMDS customers, using Hybrid Networks gear (is the vendor that took over for HN still around?) called Sprint Broadband Direct. As far as I know, they're still out there, though their numbers are way, way down as Sprint (or their subcontractor - perhaps Kite) had some INCREDIBLE problems that drove SBD customers to find ANY other source of Broadband Internet Access, including satellite. One of the most damning (and one of the most fundamental services for an ISP) issues was unreliable DNS. I was subscribed to a mailing list by SBD users, and the complaints about unreliable DNS were amazing. Like you... I've learned the slow, sad, hard way over the decade that I've been writing about Broadband Wireless Internet Access that SO many companies that entered into the BWIA industry were never about actually providing services, but rather ALL about, either subtly, or overtly, purely stock scams. They did the minimum that they could get away with while pumping out press releases for even the most mundane corporate accomplishments, paid handsome salaries, and exercised atrocious technical judgment. The example you cite from personal experience is but one of many such stories. Some of the most egregious, such as Teligent and WinStar were detailed in a chapter of Om Malik's EXCELLENT book Broadbandits. An acquaintance of mine here in the Seattle area tells a story eerily similar to yours about the outcome of selling his very-well regarded ISP to WinStar. All this said... the trend towards consolidation / rollups of ISPs / WISPs is real and continuing, and there are a number of "acquirers" out there that ARE doing a good job of consolidation. I think it all boils down to due diligence on the part of those selling a business - if you can't make sense of the potential acquirer's business model or talk to the leadership of previously acquired companies and hear good things from them, you might want to think twice. Thanks for taking the time, and soul searching to offer your cautionary tale, Allen! Steve On 9/12/07, Allen Marsalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Old Sprint MMDS Project > > Steve Stroh can correct me if I'm wrong. His > memory is much better than mine. But recall the > old Sprint MMDS network in Phoenix and a few > other markets? They had about 15k or 20k users > at one time as I recall before they put a freeze > on signups back years ago. 20k isn't much by my > dial-up standards, but this was the largest fixed > wireless network in the country IIRC. Well Sprint > found someone named Jerry Sullivan at Kite > Networks (Old Tritel mogul?) to contract out the > maintenance of these licensed spectrum fixed > wireless customers owned by Sprint. > > MOBL buy's Kite from Jerry for something like > $20MM (I forget). (wink wink) Last month, MOBL > just sold Kite to someone called Gobility for > barely $2MM only the deal has fallen through > cause they can't get funding or > something. Whatever.. So this represents yet another major stockholder loss. > > As a side note, Robert Hoskins at Broadband > Wireless Exchange was so duped. Even at this > moment he lists MobilePro as the largest WISP in > the USA by Robert. LMAO……I don't believe it, do you? > > <http://www.bbwexchange.com/wireless_isp/>http://www.bbwexchange.com/wireless_isp/ > > MOBL owns very few true wireless > customers. Sprint owns all those MMDS > customers. Robert is smarter than that so I have > to wonder. Sprint is technically the largest > WISP in the nation measure by customers OWNED > rather than customers "served" as a > subcontractor. But Sprint never claimed that > honor (or got to Robert for the publicity) Sorry > Robert, I'm not dissing you. Just disappointed > for the lack of due diligence or whatever. Quite > a big zit on your website if you ask me. Butr hey, what do I know. > Allen > am at bandwise dot com ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
Jack: If you can reasonably allege that what's going on IS in fact malicious interference, that IS actionable by the FCC. Even if the spectrum in question is license-exempt spectrum, malicious interference is specifically prohibited. Thanks, Steve On 9/12/07, Jack Unger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's hard for me to accept that there are a few inconsiderate bullies > out there who would intentionally and maliciously jam other WISPs in > order to take over the customer base. I have recently seen probable > evidence of just such behavior. Because the FCC has no law (that I know > of) against this disgraceful behavior, legal recourse needs to be made > in state court and state laws do vary from state to state. > > Would anyone who has fought against this type of unethical behavior > please share with me (offlist please) what State law(s) they used? > > Thanks in advance, > > jack > > -- > Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. > FCC License # PG-12-25133 > Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 > Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" > True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting > FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers > Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com (Man I get tired of cleaning up all that automatic drivel that gets appended to every posting to this list). -- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Thoughts on 900MHz mesh networks
Dylan: WildBlue is leasing satellite transponders for their current service, but I don't think they have anything to do with Hughes. Thanks, Steve On 9/10/07, Dylan Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Isn't WildBlue actually leasing a HughesNet/DirecWay satellite? Thus sprach > a HughesNet installer, anyway. > Best, > -- > Dylan Oliver > Primaverity, LLC -- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Thoughts on 900MHz mesh networks
Allen: While progress in satellite communications can be measured in 5 year increments - to design, fund, and launch them... technological progress DOES come, and has. Spot beams are now a standard feature on all new satellites, and it's beginning to make a big difference. Watch to see what happens with WildBlue over the next year as they bring their built-for-purpose satellite online, as opposed to using "one big, continent-spanning transponder" technology. Thanks, Steve On 9/10/07, Allen Marsalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I clearly see your point as an old FHSS guy. hehehe > > LOL, between you and me, I would never have waxed so philosophically > over this idea had it not been for the muni-wifi movement with its > limited non-overlapping channels. Multiple radio systems got me > interested in meshing a while back. I guess I'm not the only one, > but my market is definitely not city wifi like Strix. > > Gotcha, many thanks for responding to me Steve. I think there is > something to be learned under every new stone, and even some old > stones long forgotten my most... I barely remember Metricom and > "packet radio". > > Hmmm I just saw a HughesNet commercial. The one with the pretty lady > in a green dress. I assume GEO satellite service still stinks to > high heaven?? I nearly forgot about those guys... I once knew Avi > Freedman when he was into some satellite stuff and learned enough not > to be too scared of the sat guys who have their own unique set of > expensive problems. > > Allen > -- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Thoughts on 900MHz mesh networks
Allen: Metricom's long out of business, but technologically, they made it work (albeit at ~28 Kbps, and later ~128 Kbps). One of the key things they did to make it work at 902-928 MHz is to use FHSS and small channel sizes rather than fixed, wide channels as all the current 902-928 MHz BWIA gear (except Alvarion's BreezeNet [?]. The earlier version did both mesh and access using 902-928 MHz. The newer version used 2.3 and 2.4 GHz for the mesh (backhaul) and 902-928 MHz for access only. Thanks, Steve On 9/10/07, Allen Marsalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for the reply Steve. Can you share if they were able to make > it work or not? Any info would be greatly appreciated. > > Allen -- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Thoughts on 900MHz mesh networks
Allen: Metricom did. Thanks, Steve On 9/10/07, Allen Marsalis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I take it that nobody has ever built a 900MHz NLOS mesh network > before. Which is not a good sign to me. That's a sign that my idea > probably won't work. > > Allen > > -- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] McDonalds
The Internet connectivity for a McDonald's (and other national retail operations) typically isn't used solely for Wi-Fi hotspots; often they use it for internal operations too, like employee training videos. Thanks, Steve On 9/4/07, Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Has anyone observed how much Mcdonalds hotspots are being used? Im yet to > see anyone in the dinning room with a laptop at the ones I go to. Seems like > it would be a good place for the cops to do reports or salesmen to do > orders. Coffee is cheap too. On the other hand the majority of the coffee > houses where I have my internet machines there is standing room only. And > every table has a laptop open connected to my A/P there. Joe > -- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Says White-Space Spectrum Device Doesn't Work
Butch: There were actually two different whitespace devices tested by the FCC, and they were very much prototypes. Making a device for whitespaces is markedly different than anything vendors such as Alvarion have ever done, because a whitespaces device has to guard against interfering with television broadcast signals AND wireless microphones (yes, really - wireless microphones are a licensed use of whitespace spectrum). Until there are real whitespace rules at least proposed... how does a company like Alvarion even know what to attempt to build? Thanks, Steve On 8/9/07, Butch Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I presume you're referring to mobile applications. I know that you > (Alvarion) have a mobile 900 product, so the step to this lower band > should be and easy one for that technology anyway. > > You don't have any information on what device the FCC tested and > failed, do you? You're the guy that would know if anyone does. :-) > > -- > Butch Evans > Network Engineering and Security Consulting > 573-276-2879 > http://www.butchevans.com/ > My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6 > Training Partners: http://tinyurl.com/smfkf > Mikrotik Certified Consultant > http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html -- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Re: Need emergency wireless internet service
Marlon: You didn't provide any direct contact info for Gary - email address is masked (likely by Outlook) and no phone number listed. Thanks, Steve On 8/8/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Need emergency wireless internet serviceAnyone help a stranded motorist in NY? > > laters, > Marlon > (509) 982-2181 > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services > 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > - Original Message - > From: Wellman, Garry M > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 11:10 AM > Subject: Need emergency wireless internet service > > > Marlon > > We've been having trouble at our Long Island City, Queens, NY site with the > telephone company. completely out.. No voice data etc, we are running > everything over a cellular connection right now,but looking for a fixed > wireless solution. > > Can you find out if anyone offers wireless internet for Anheuser-Busch, > 55-01 Second Street, Long Island City, NY 11101? > > > > Thanks, > Garry > -- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] WISP listings
Mike: As soon as you are actually providing Broadband Wireless Internet Access service, I'd be happy to list you at http://www.bwiaserviceproviders.com. Same offer to all other Broadband Wireless Internet Access Service Providers on this list. You don't have to be a member of WISPA (or Part-15.Org, or WCA, or ...) to be listed - just be an actual provider of Broadband Wireless Internet Access. If you'd like to be listed - send me an email OFF LIST. As for criteria for entities already on the list - I add listings as I encounter them from all KINDS of sources, so don't take offense if you're not already on the list (or undue pleasure if you already are on the list.) Thanks, Steve On 8/3/07, Mike Hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am listed with Part-15 and Broadband Reports. What other directories are > out there? > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com -- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Telecom lawyers ?
You'll find a great one - Kris Twomey, listed on Broadband Wireless Internet Access / WiMAX Professionals at http://www.bwiapros.com. Thanks, Steve On 7/21/07, Smith, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Need a lawyer on good recommendation from someone here. I'm in northern NJ, need to go for CLEC status. Want someone reputable. Don't care about cost. Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -------- -- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Wimax
I can confirm that Clearwire has approximately no actual customers using WiMAX. Clearwire has done one experimental WiMAX deployment in the Portland area; all the rest of their deployments are using NextNet Wireless gear which is entirely proprietary, not WiMAX. Clearwire wants to give the impression that they're using and deploying WiMAX, but they're not - yet. Thanks, Steve On 7/17/07, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can anyone confirm 232,000 WiMAX customers for Clearwire? I could believe total customers, but I would think that the majority of those would be using NextNet equipment and not WiMax. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless -- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Guy climbs tower, goes riding down the guy wires!
Dennis: Thanks for sharing that. I otherwise wouldn't have believed someone could be that stupid (but then there's always the Darwin Awards...) Thanks, Steve On 7/11/07, Dennis Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://www.myfoxstl.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=B99869228E14E3C20E4925718D26335E?contentId=3713576&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1 *http://tinyurl.com/2f6hhy **This is about 15 min from my house, was a Digital TV tower for Channel 24. * -- Dennis Burgess, MCP, CCNA, A+, N+, Mikrotik Certified Consultant www.mikrotikconsulting.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 4.9 use
Butch: From what I understand, frequency coordination for 4.9 GHz is local, though all transmitters in licensed spectrum are eventually registered with the FCC. I imagine 4.9 GHz is in various areas are coordinated through one of the longstanding public safety frequency coordination groups such as APCO. Ask a local two-way radio dealer that maintains police, fire, or other goverment two-way radio systems who the local frequency coordinators are. Thanks, Steve On 7/10/07, Butch Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: While on this subject, I have a possible project where 4.9GHz would be perfect. It is a single PD (municipal) with 3 buildings (including the jail) that they want interconnected. I had considered 4.9 because the 5gig band is pretty much useless in that area. RF-wise, we're good. Is there a federal frequency coodinator for use of this band? Local? Do they just start using it? Any insights would be MUCH appreciated. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6 Training Partners: http://tinyurl.com/smfkf Mikrotik Certified Consultant http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html -- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz - The Other View
John: I didn't say that no use was being made of 700 MHz. Yes, there is, mostly by rural telephone companies, and of course, Qualcomm's MediaFlo television system. But those are the exception - to my knowledge, Aloha Partners (the largest owner of 700 MHz spectrum...) hasn't deployed any systems within the spectrum that it owns, and that's endemic of the problem(s) with 700 MHz. My comments about WISPA and television whitespace don't seem to be contributing much to the discussion, so I'll apologize to you and those involved in those discussions and not bring it up again. Thanks, Steve On 7/9/07, John Scrivner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A WISP is a "Wireless Internet Service Provider". Any further definition is not needed. That does not mean that all WISPs are created equal, nor does it discount the larger players from being WISPs. We were certain that larger WISPs would eventually emerge and be part of WISPA and made sure each company only gets one vote because of that. I did not dispute that part of your article. Caution is good. Just because it has not been done much yet does not mean we should not try to do it. Actually it is the only reason why we have a shot at it IMO. I will get you data on systems serving rural areas with 700 MHz shortly. It is being done and with good success in some areas. I am not being defensive as much as I am clarifying that there were no "clouded" problems created from the 50 or so emails shared between a few companies who all wanted to see us get unlicensed access to white spaces. Policy of WISPA was not discussed. I think you are reading tone or content that does not exist. I simply clarified my position on what I read in your article. I even went so far as to mention that I consider you a friend and that we usually see eye to eye. I think you are getting yourself ruffled over nothing. Best regards, Scriv -- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz - The Other View
licensed is just about as good as unlicenced use. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 700 MHz - The Other View
Scriv: I disagree your statement that "If they use [700 MHz] to sell broadband wireless Internet then by definition those parties will then become WISPs." I doubt that Verizon Communications (landlines) and Verizon Wireless would consider themselves WISPs merely by acquiring more spectrum - any more than they do now considering that they both own considerable amounts of spectrum and both already offer Broadband Wireless Internet Access. Do you consider Sprint / Nextel a WISP (they're doing Broadband Wireless in 2.5 GHz)? Is AT&T a WISP (they're doing BW in 2.3 GHz)? How about Clearwire? No... there's a very clear stratification between WISPs and other players that isn't bridged by the common use of Broadband Wireless Internet Access, or use of a particular portion of spectrum. The main thrust of the article... at least as I saw it... was to offer caution to WISPs who are considering entering the bidding for 700 MHz spectrum. I wish it were the case that the existence of new spectrum such as 700 MHz results in new services. But unfortunately, that's not the way of the world. We have ample precedent that those who acquire spectrum largely DON'T use it; thus I remain skeptical that 700 MHz will translate to "... a means of delivering broadband in rural areas... " as you state. The main reason for this is, and it's a mild criticism of the worldview of the average WISP, is that rural areas are not a priority for large companies (that have the deep pockets to win spectrum auctions). Simply, brutally put, rural areas aren't where the money is. You don't need any better evidence of this than Verizon, one of the biggest telecommunications companies (and a potential bidder for 700 MHz) is DIVESTING itself of its operations in entire rural states, such as Maine. So... will 700 MHz licenses in rural areas be snapped up, probably by large companies? Oh yes indeed! Does it follow that those new owners of 700 MHz licenses will actually build out systems in rural areas? No, largely because experience argues just the opposite - check out how many systems Aloha Partners discusses having constructed, considering that "Aloha currently owns 12MHz of spectrum covering 60% of the United States - including all of the top 10 markets and 84% of the population in the top 40 markets". Answer... none. Aloha Partners is sitting on its spectrum, hoping it will appreciate, maybe that some bigger player will buy it, and they'll end up with a tidy profit on its investment. Or maybe they're just waiting for better, cheaper systems to emerge. Or they're waiting for... whatever. The bottom line is that there are no Broadband Systems being built with that particular spectrum, and no new customers being served, no additional competition for Broadband services being brought to bear. But mostly I'm disappointed what you chose to focus in the article on was my mild criticism of WISPA's participation in a "closed door" collaboration with very large companies such as Intel, Microsoft, Cisco, Google, etc. regarding television whitespaces. No, I wasn't griping about being (individually) excluded from the discussions. My criticism was much more broad - I felt that the entire WISPA membership... and the WISP community as a whole, was excluded from the discussions. This from an organization which prides itself on being open, transparent, democratic, and "of, by, and for WISPs"? It didn't seem that way to me, and that "closed door" mindset was, to me, a worrisome development for WISPA. Even more worrisome is that WISPA's leadership, reflected by your attitude, is defensive and apparently proud of their "closed doors" participation in the television whitespaces collaboration with Intel, etc. But those are the comments of one WISP industry observer. If you choose to "shoot the messenger" instead of addressing the actual comments and criticisms, so be it. Thanks, Steve On 7/8/07, John Scrivner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Steve Stroh and I usually see things the same way. We have somewhat varying views on the 700 MHz auction coming up. Here are his views on the upcoming 700 MHz auction. http://www.wispnews.net/2007/07/my-take-on-700-.html It is important to note that part of what is going to happen is that there will be new WISPs once this spectrum sells. Some of them will look very different from the WISPs we generally see now. I have done my part to attempt to make this opportunity available to WISPs who are in place now through the formation of the 700 MHz Committee. I have little doubt that many licenses will go to people who are not now WISPs. If they use the spectrum to sell broadband wireless Internet then by definition those parties will then become WISPs. The future of 700 MHz use as a means of delivering broadband in rural areas will bear fruit. How well it doe
Re: [WISPA] Report: Sprint looking for WiMAX partner
My take on this is at http://www.bwianews.com/2007/06/clearwire_and_s.html Thanks, Steve On 6/15/07, Jack Unger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://telephonyonline.com/home/news/sprint_wimax_partner_061407/ -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- 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/
Re: [WISPA] Copper Plant
Clint: No, not really, as AT&T is betting on copper only in the last few hundred feet to the premises. While they're not going to do fiber-to-the-premises, they will be doing a fiber infrastructure. Thanks, Steve On 6/15/07, Clint Ricker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: AT&T is betting on copper for the next 5-10 years for the next 5-10 years. I think that, alone, about disbunks this article. -Clint -- 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/
Re: [WISPA] Copper Plant
Clearwire isn't doing too bad :-) The antennas are built into the radios, which live inside. If you're in a fringe coverage area and are willing to pay for the installation, they do have a unit with "a little antenna on the corner of the house". Thanks, Steve On 6/15/07, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I was just thinking yesterday about a conversation I had with a telephone guy just after I took over the old winfinity.com isp-bbs. At that time ATT said they would be in every market, wirelesly. They would put a little antenna on the corner of every house Who is putting little antennas on the corners of houses today? :) George -- 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/
Re: [WISPA] Following the FCC rules are now simplyabout being"stickerconscious" or not??
Mark: But, the FACT of the matter is by slapping together that collection of pieces to make a radio that you will deploy for commercial, revenue service as a telecommunications service provider is ILLEGAL. You make a compelling case that the "pieces parts" systems you're describing are far more innovative than what's currently on the market from the larger vendors... but ultimately irrelevant. That you don't THINK putting together "pieces parts" radios for use in the US without going through the formality of FCC certification as a system SHOULD be illegal is irrelevant. Thanks, Steve On Feb 18, 2007, at Feb 18 09:07 PM, wispa wrote: On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:52:04 -0800, Patrick Leary wrote George, ones person's "innovation" is something that might another person nothing but migraines. If you think you getting cutting edge innovation and state of the art technology from the uncertified manufacturers I don't know what to tell you except your technology exposure may be a bit narrow. But Patrick, it's NOT "uncertified manufacturers" as if we're talking about some big greedy corporation. Unless you refer to me. Or the guy down the street. Or even the woman over in the next town. Or THOUSANDS of people all over the world who find that what they want to do is either not supported by something off the shelf, or never even conceived by some engineer, or didn't make it past the marketing and budgeting departments. Download an open and free bit of Linux. Buy a surplus CPU board. Buy whatever radio module you want or need. Put it in a box and VIOLA, you already have more features most WISP Network operators wnat, than Alvarion can figure out how to put in a box. Does it have "cutting edge" RF qualities? Nope. Does it have Cisco quality routing? Nope. Does it have -100 to +200 degree temperature range? Nope. But, none of those are required. I don't have to the BEST rf front end and features to be successful. I just have to have to have the ones I find necessary, and the ability to get those things changed I need changed. And these people are endlessly exploring and refining mesh networks, customer controls, routing, etc, etc... and THEY NEVER STOP. So, if I want the lowest priced VL stuff to route and do NAT at the customer's end, will Alvarion build it in for me? No? Gee, that's already in the FREE stuff. Huh. Next time you whine that there's "uncertified manufacturers", you're talking about the workshops, desks, garages, offices, or even spare bedrooms of THOUSANDS and thousands of people spread all around the country. And we shoulid NOT be stifled by a rigid and corporate-centric regulatory straightjacket. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mark Koskenmaki <> Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - http://www.bwianews.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Following the FCC rules are now simply about being "stickerconscious" or not??
Your competitors thank you for ignoring some of the best gear on the market. I'm not an Alvarion proponent, or apologist. There's lots of other good gear on the market that's the equal of Alvarion. But in no other segment of the telecommunications industry are BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL, CRITICAL decisions that go straight to the fundamental success of a WISP's business as their choice of gear are decided by one person's emotions, as they are in the WISP industry. Sheesh... That Patrick IS speaking fundamental truths that you don't want to hear because they're "inconvenient" or simply irritating... and you're deciding that you're not going to buy Alvarion gear because of that??? Like I said, your competitors thank you for making bad business choices so that they won't have to compete with you much longer. Thanks, Steve On Feb 18, 2007, at Feb 18 11:36 AM, rabbtux rabbtux wrote: I try to keep a low profile around here, you listen twice and speak once. Wispa membership has been a good experience for me. However, Patrick has once again, been the HIGH & MiGHTY, and jumped all over my one phrase. I did not mean to imply anything illegal about my in tensions, other than I might re-use/re-deploy existing equipment. What I do know now, is that Alvaron is off my shopping list for a long time now, due to their over zealous employee. I also know that more of my posts will go to the members-only list to avoid this nonsense. --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - http://www.bwianews.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Brief report from FCC visit
ket lifespan and the almost frantic pace of innovation and technological improvement has obsoleted the "assembly certification" process, as parts suppliers update what's being sold as often as every few months. So, we certify the Star-OS WAR board with a Compex WLM54AG (super) and next month they drop that radio and start building a newer better version. THEY have to do all the work to make it compliant in the first place... why not let that work be all that's required for compliance? Computer manufactures do this, and that's the only reason we're not stuck with onerous delays for new technology. If they want innovation and advancement, then they need to build a regulatory framework that does NOT stand in the way, and at the same time encourages both compliance and advancement. Boy, is there a lot of FUD about this. A lot of BS flying about, too. So, who's gotten certified for 5.4? Mark Koskenmaki <> Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Re: WOW Way to put foot into mouth!
David: Mostly due to inputs from WISPs that made a good point, and as you did below with Cambridge Broadband, FCC certification is moot outside the US, so I'm dropping the mention / requirement of FCC certification for companies to be on the list. I will continue to list only companies that offer radio systems, however - not merely radio modules. Thanks, Steve On Feb 16, 2007, at Feb 16 05:41 AM, David Peterson wrote: Sorry for the old reference, Ultramesh is no long with us. I only consult at this time. I noticed some companies on your list that are not selling certified gear, and as such should not be posted publicly as doing so by an industry journalist. This would cause some people to purchase products that they themselves would not have done so without your assertion. However, I will follow up my statement with additional research. Aruba Networks I would have to say I am likely wrong here, and if they are on this list please forward your FCC ID if you like. Their product page shows equipment with the following "Electromagnetic Compliance" Although their url to country certification list shows a 404 page. # FCC Part 15 Class B # FCC Part 15 Class C 15.207/15.247 # FCC Part 15 Class E 15.407 # ICES-003 Class A # RSS 210 (CAN) # VCCI Class A # EN 61000-3, EN 61000-4-2, EN 61000-4-3, EN 61000-4-4 # EN 61000-4-5, EN 61000-4-6, EN 61000-4-8, EN 61000-4-11 # 73/23/EEC and 89/336/EEC # EN 55022, EN55024 (89/336/EEC) # ETS 300 328 (89/336/EEC), ETS 301 489 (89/336/EEC) # ETS 301 893 # AS/NZS 3548 Class A # RFS 29 (NZ) Avantry I find them at Wincomm, but not at the FCC site under Avantry or Witcom. However, given the style and cost of their equipment, its unlikely that they have spent the kind of R&D money they appear to have spent without getting certifed. Again if anyone from Avantry/Witcom or even Wincomm wants to forward the ID# to this list please feel free. Cambridge Broadband They appear to sell outside the US and operate in 3.5, 10.5 and 26 Ghz FDD equipment. As such they are unlikely FCC certified, but are likely certified in many other countries. Looks pricey. http://www.cambridgebroadband.com/contact.htm CarrierComm Appears to be an ASIC and OEM manufacturer for the cellular industry. That one is out of my knowledge field, but my first thought would be that they are compliant with the regulations for SDR. CoCo Communications They seem to have added a protocol to existing linux based equipment. Question for the industry: If you change the firmware on existing access points and rebrand them to your company, are you required to recertify the equipment? Deliberant Nothing further on them. EION Wireless Appears to have bought the Wi-Lan product line. Their other equipment, however doesn't show up under any FCC search. If anyone from EION wants to chime in, please do. GIL Technology Seems to be the Taiwanese manufacturer for the old Wi-Lan product line. http://www.gil.com.tw/eng/product/wireless/libra5800.htm Qorvus Nothing further on them. No FCC ID's for their WRAP board + linux offering (based on LocustWorld) + CM9/Senao 2511MP based products. David Peterson No longer with the now defunct Ultramesh Inc. --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Re: old WLAN history
Patrick: You just accelerated the launch of Broadband Wireless Internet Access Deadpool - http://www.bwiadeadpool.com. It was, and will probably continue to be a low-priority project, but my files are just BULGING with the dead BWIA companies (not even COUNTING the dead service providers.) It will be fun rehashing these stories. Some of my favorite dead companies are Malibu Networks, Radiant Networks, and especially Caly Networks. Thinking about my files, the list of dead BWIA vendors must run into the hundreds by now. In my reading of the announcements WaveRider --> Vecima Networks, I don't think Charles made the transition. Thanks, Steve On Feb 16, 2007, at Feb 16 09:25 AM, Patrick Leary wrote: Well, for sure this industry never stands still does it Steve? As one fond of change, that one of the things I most enjoy. I knew from people there that V-com has become Vecima (much better 'new millienium' type name), but I did not know they absorbed Wave/Waverider. Did Charles (Brown) join Vecima too? Years ago when the Cirronet folks were creating their company out of their successful industrial wireless space, I sat down with of the principals. They really thought they had the secret sauce. I was very cautionary, trying to impart how challenging the market was/(is!). They had a hard and not especially gratifying few years. I forgot about Arraycom sold off iBurst. Sigh. It made me "remember how much I have forgotten" about lost companies in this business. Remember ioSpan? How about Beamreach? Remember they even had a successful Verizon trial fours years ago. And then how about all the companies bought, collapsed into and morphed over the years? Someday we should build a full "BWIA family tree" of sorts. Fun examples (I might be a little off [is that Fruedian?]) just from perhaps the 4 original wireless LAN pioneers: Glenair spun off Western Multiplex>WMUX buys the original WLAN pioneer Proxim and keeps Proxim name> Proxim buys Farallon and Proxim buys Agere>Proxim sold in bankruptcy to YDI who had recently "bought" Terabeam>YDI/Terabeam dba Proxim And within that story is Agere: Lannet spins off>LANair pieces become part of Lucent's original pioneering WLAN group>Lucent spins out Agere which comes out with Orinoco which ends up at Proxim... And fewer would know the others with ties from LANair formed original WLAN pioneer BreezeCOM, which later merged with Floware to became Alvarion in 2001... How many remember that Telxon created original WLAN pioneer Aironet which was bought by Cisco. And all that is one tiny fraction of all that has taken place and does not even cover the rise of the UL BWA application itself where we were also a principal pioneer on the product side (but we were only smartly following the lead of the original WISPs, most who were using our gear that pre-dated DSSS) as the others stayed in WLAN. I wonder what the next 12 years will bring? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Re: WOW Way to put foot into mouth!
Grant Notes FCC Rule Parts Frequency Range (MHZ) Output Watts Frequency Tolerance Emission Designator 20 28 36 15C 2412.0 - 2462.0 0.09441 20 28 36 15C 5745.0 - 5825.0 0.06109 --- From Deliberant --- DLB7023 802.11a + g 23dBi Integrated Dual Radio Sku: DLB7023 The DLB7023 802.11a + g 23dBi Dual Radio features an 802.11a interface with 23dBi antenna as well as an 802.11b/g interface that operate simultaneously. This hardware configuration, along with extremely flexible software configuration options, make the DLB7023 one of the most versatile platforms on the market today. Each interface can be an AP, Client, or WDS bridge, which results in the perfect outdoor radio for remote repeaters, apartment communities, and dual-band APs and CPEs. -- (Could be wrong, let me know if 0.06109 EIRP = the above specs...) EION Wireless There are no applications on file that match the search criteria specified: Applicant Name: EION Wireless GIL Technology There are no applications on file that match the search criteria specified: Applicant Name: GIL Technology Qorvus (they only repackage LocustWorld based software with CM9/ Ubiquiti and 200mW Senao cards) There are no applications on file that match the search criteria specified: Applicant Name: Qorvus --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Broadband Wireless Internet Access Vendors list
Mac: (Gently) It's my list. I prefer to not "make enemies" and call out companies for being illegal. The bottom line is that without a lot of investigation... many more hours than I'm currently willing and financially able to devote to compiling this list, I don't KNOW for sure if vendors are selling non-certified gear, so it's out of scope for me to "call out" a vendor for being non-certified. The list is entirely subjective, based on my criteria, what I consider to be vendors of SYSTEMS (not components) used for Broadband Wireless Internet Access (big picture - Wi-Fi to WiMAX to satellite and everything in between). As for that third paragraph... I have NO idea what to make of that, so I'll just say that, in my opinion, US WISPs should care in the end about using only FCC certified systems. I certainly would if I were a US WISP. If a US WISP isn't using certified systems, they're facing a very real business risk of being fined and potentially shut down by the FCC. Small risk perhaps, but real. If a US WISP is being acquired and they don't disclose that risk, they could be in serious legal trouble. If a purchaser of a US WISP (and I'm reading about more and more rollups daily) finds out that a to-be-acquired US WISP is using non-certified gear, the offering price would go WAY down, at least it would be that way if I was the potential purchaser or an adviser to a potential purchaser. Non-US WISPs... I hear you, and in all fairness, I had not previously considered your position that the at-times-inane-FCC rules are largely irrelevant to you. I'm thinking about this. Thanks, Steve On Feb 15, 2007, at Feb 15 09:09 PM, Mac Dearman wrote: So Steve - who does that mean you leave out? (I can only think of two MAJOR players) You ask this on a list that where there are probably only 3 members who run 100% "stickered" radios? SHAME! I realize that this will probably stir the stink, but get REAL! Post your list openly - Patrick you can roll in the sunshine for a day, but I will tell you what - -- the day is short and the time is near to where some of the guys whose gear is getting black listed and put to an open shame today in your posts is nearing an end. Then will be our (illegal SOB's today)) time to gloat and bask in the sun like a pig in a long, fat, deep, cool wallow. Then what? Mac Dearman --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Broadband Wireless Internet Access Vendors list
Patrick: I couldn't find a reference for Optimax that related to Broadband Wireless Internet Access. Thanks, Steve On Feb 15, 2007, at Feb 15 07:19 PM, Patrick Leary wrote: Also...is Optimax still around? That was cool stuff Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Broadband Wireless Internet Access Vendors list
Patrick: Thanks for the inputs. FreeWave and MDS were added from a previous reply. Lightpointe typo corrected. Wave Wireless / Waverider was sold to Vecima Networks. ZTE added. Huawei added. Almost couldn't find any references to Acton; it's actually Accton, now added. Added AWB. Cirronet still lists their Broadband Wireless gear. As far as I can tell, Qualcomm doesn't actually make gear - the only thing they manufacture is chipsets and lawsuits. Arraycomm is also out of the equipment business - only intellectual property and IntelliCell. iBurst was spun off to Kyocera. Good point on Terabeam; it was deleted and Proxim added. Thanks, Steve On Feb 15, 2007, at Feb 15 07:17 PM, Patrick Leary wrote: Steve, here are a few off my head that are not there...Freewave, MDS, Lightpointe is with an "e" on the end, Wave Wireless (formerly Waverider, etc.), ZTE (ZiMAX), Huwaie, Acton Wireless Broadband (AWB), is Cirronet still around?, Qualcomm (with their MediaFLO), Arraycom, Terabeam actually dba's as Proxim. P.S. - thanks for only including legal vendors Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Broadband Wireless Internet Access Vendors list
I've posted my most recent update to my Broadband Wireless Internet Access Vendors list at http://www.bwiavendors.com/2007/02/ bwia_vendors_up_1.html This update lists 85 unique vendors, and while that's a lot, I know there's more. If you could take a look at it and tell me of any vendors that I missed, I would appreciate it. Please reply OFF-LIST; I don't want to clutter the list. Please note that I'm deliberately not listing vendors who only sell sub-systems such as antennas, radio cards, etc. - only full-blown radio systems suitable for outdoor use. An additional caveat is that I won't knowingly list systems that are not FCC certified. Thanks for any help you can offer to make this a better, more complete list. Thanks, Steve --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players
Brian: Amateur Radio processes was one of the mental models I used in my proposal. You were right on in noting the similarities. Thanks, Steve (N8GNJ) On Feb 8, 2007, at Feb 8 09:55 AM, Brian Webster wrote: Steve, What you are suggesting here is very similar to what the ham radio community does now. I would add a step in your process, that first the offending WISP be contacted via official WISPA correspondence explaining what it is we are doing and the planned course of action through the FCC and give them a chance to correct the problems voluntarily. That's what the hams do and many times that works. If this process were to work, we might actually get recognition from the FCC as a monitor for this purpose. Thank You, Brian Webster --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...)
st that type of operator. It really shows ignorance to pull such a stunt, but these types of operators know absolutely nothing anyway. Once again - what we are doing and tolerating is nothing new - - these type folks are everywhere in everything and every business in life - - just look around! Mac --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Boeing Fails to Learn from WISPs
Marlon: I confess that my jaw dropped too, especially that the weight issue came out better for the wired system, but in fairness, read the story a bit more closely. It's not just Internet access that the wireless system was handling - it was also the seatback video, etc. Given that, it makes more sense to do wired, and if you're doing wired, just put in an Ethernet jack. Of course, some sharpie is going to use the wired connection to provide Wi-FI to the rest of the plane. It's two clicks on my Mac laptop. Thanks, Steve On Jan 27, 2007, at Jan 27 08:04 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: 200 lbs of aps and antennas How the hell is THAT possible? I'll bet all of my gear weighs in less than that and I've got 6000 square miles over coverage, not just one puny little airplane! Steve, do your old bosses need help over there or what? You need to go back to work for Boing! marlon --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[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 by dint of his personal influence, Alvarion itself, and by that example, a number of other vendors that build products for the WISP industry. Don't like to hear such hard truths? Don't listen then. You all have the ability to filter out dissenting voices such as Patrick, and me. But if you all believe what you claim, that you're trying to build an association that truly represents the WISP industry and what it ultimately has the potential to become... the hard, unpleasant truths have to be addressed and dealt with... not just ignore them and hope they won't be noticed. They WILL be noticed, and are now being noticed by the WISP industry's increasingly serious competition - newly-clueful telcos with new Broadband Wireless technology, cellular carriers, municipal wireless / Wi-Fi vendors and operators, satellite service providers, and new entrants such as Clearwire. Such entities may not be a "threat" to the WISP industry as a whole quite yet... but it wasn't too long ago that WISPs weren't a threat to them either. There are days when I just shake my head alternately in wonderment and dismay at the WISP industry. This is one of them. Thanks, Steve On Feb 6, 2007, at Feb 6 12:47 PM, John Scrivner wrote: Patrick, what is Alvarion doing as a corporation to police the majority of BWIA vendors who now pollute our industry with uncertified gear? These are your peers. Do you like being stereotyped with them? Your stereotyping of WISP operators as being predominantly illegal and the source of the problem is not accurate or fair and I want it to stop. The majority of the WISPs out there are trying to do right. It is the vendors who are the real problem. The majority of vendors ignore the law. The last gear purchase I made was for an Alvarion B100 backhaul link which is due in here today. It is certified but now I wonder if buying from a vendor who stereotypes the industry is a good idea. Maybe I made a mistake buying from your company? By the way, the slam about 4.9 GHz is completely erroneous and you need to apologize. The vast majority of WISPs stay the hell away from 4.9 and other bands which we are not allowed in. You need to watch your tack on this public list. Being a paid vendor member does not give you the right to sling mud or FUD. Scriv --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Re: Steve Stroh writing
Scriv: Apologies for not responding sooner - I've been busy building new web sites :-) I don't want to make this into a commercial on the WISPA list, but because you asked... I'm back to writing full time about Broadband Wireless Internet Access for a series of highly-focused web sites, under a new company, Stroh Publications LLC. The "flagship" is Broadband Wireless Internet Access / WiMAX weblog - http://www.bwianews.com and there will be many others. The new sites will be announced there, on http://www.stevestroh.com, and on two additional sites (all of this is very much a work in progress). It's also a bit early to mention this, but enough of the pieces are in place to say this much- Wireless Tech Radio is coming back. More in a few weeks. Thanks, Steve On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24 10:12 AM, John Scrivner wrote: Steve and welcome back to writing for our industry. We missed your crystal ball. :-) Steve, could you send us a link(s) to where we can find what you are writing these days? Thanks, Scriv --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces
Jack: Consider... To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a "we'll stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity" manner is the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has been steadily losing ground now; first 800 MHz was carved out of Channels 70-83, and now the 700 MHz bands are being carved out of Channels 52-69. The trend is clear, and while it's one thing for powerful terrestrial broadcasting to "share" spectrum with low-power license-exempt usage, it's quite another for communications use to do the same. If the broadcasters play things right (and it appears they are "bending" towards white space license-exempt usage, but very much on THEIR terms...) the license-exempt usage of television white space may serve to "pollute" the remaining television broadcast spectrum sufficiently to prevent future reallocation (for at least another decade or so). Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are some of the names being bandied about as advocates for license-exempt use of white space television broadcast spectrum. Thanks, Steve On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24 09:21 AM, Jack Unger wrote: Likelihood of unlicensed??? My guess is that the established communications carriers and the broadcasters will fight the concept of license-free use of this space. I expect it will come down to who lobbies Congress most effectively. -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces
Patrick is correct - Flarion was working on 802.20 (full mobility broadband) which, with the "borging" of Flarion by Qualcomm, has essentially terminated. Mobile Broadband standards work now seems to have shifted fully over to 802.16e / Mobile WiMAX (which will be 100% licensed spectrum.) I'll answer the last question on another post. Thanks, Steve On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24 10:12 AM, John Scrivner wrote: I knew there was an 802.22 effort but I had no idea that it was geared for any particular spectrum until now. Glad to hear the efforts are underway. Isn't Flarion's IP based closely on what will be 802.22? Was there an earlier effort for 802.22 standards development that was spectrum agnostic? This caught me completely by surprise. Thanks for the info Steve and welcome back to writing for our industry. We missed your crystal ball. :-) Steve, could you send us a link(s) to where we can find what you are writing these days? Thanks, Scriv --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces
You've HAD offers that have been refused... Thanks, Steve On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24 07:10 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: WISPA has been working on this for a couple of years now. Independently and with Cisco, New America, Media Access Project and I've recently had talks with the 802.22 (ieee white spaces standards group) folks. As always, we need more bodies to go a better job. laters, marlon --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Local WISP Fined by FCC ...
If memory serves, MSS is Mobile Satellite Service. Like many vendors, Axxcelera makes gear that is flexible in its frequency coverage and power output. MANY countries allow higher power outputs than US, as well as different spectrum usage. It's certainly not illegal to manufacture such devices. But with Part 15 systems, it's the responsibility of the USER to insure that such equipment is being used properly, and in this case, the WISP wasn't doing so, having selected parameters that were not in accordance with US FCC Part 15.547 rules. I also think they got off easy with a $20,000 fine. Their entire network could have been summarily shut down if the FCC felt that they were causing interference with a licensed service, not to mention that the FCC can request arrest and forfeiture of offenders. Thanks, Steve On Feb 1, 2007, at Feb 1 07:32 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote: "Section 15.1(b) of the Rules states that an intentional radiator that is not in accordance with the requirements of Part 15 must be licensed," Is there and what is the licensing policy for UNII band? what is "co-channel MSS operations"?-indicated as a reason why 5.1Ghz is only allowed indoors to prevent interferrence with it. It sounds like this is a black eye for Axxelera as well as Neptune. Maybe Axxelera should share paying the fine? Wonder what about Axxelera didn't allow it to comply? The ISP adding their own antennas? Or just not having variable power settings? Was the gear non-compliant jsut for 5.3 and 5.1, and compliant for 5.8G? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces
John: There IS an IEEE standard in the works for the TV whitespaces - 802.22 - http://www.ieee802.org/22/ Thanks, Steve On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24 07:55 AM, John Scrivner wrote: The standard (as far as how gear can operate in the bands) has been created through the NPRM known as 04-186 which has gone through about 3 years of the FCC meat grinder. There is no IEEE standard or anything like that but the rules are as clear as any other unlicensed standard. Companies like Intel, Cisco, etc. have equipment designed and built which they say can be used to deliver unlicensed broadband in these spaces today. They are being tight- lipped about it though. Scriv --- 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/
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/
RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update
Patrick: I posit that the LACK of any significant consensus from the industry on 3650, when there WAS a clearly indicated desire on the part of the FCC to try out some form of mandated sharing, bolsters the case that the simplicity of Part 15 / UNII rules makes for more innovation. See... the "we ought to be able to do better" mentality is a bit of a trap. "Better" by WHOSE definition? Community Wireless activists? Experimenters? Neighborhoods? Carriers? Deep pocketed entrepreneurs? Individual entrepreneurs with a good idea? Rural? Urban? Suburban? Equipment vendors? WISPs? BWIA Service Providers? Communities? Enterprises? Point-to-point? Point-to-multipoint? Mesh? Mobile? Fixed? Nomadic? For profit? Not-for-profit? If you make it favorable for any particular group, another group (who has an equally legitimate "claim" to use that spectrum) is disadvantaged. If there's to be any hope for "better", a consensus needs to emerge. It hasn't, and I doubt it will. So... right now 3650 is looking like a failed experiment in "licensed-light" much like Unlicensed PCS was. If you need an example of failed "better"... Unlicensed PCS is a chilling example. Why in the world do we have cordless phones on 2.4 and 5.8 GHz instead of Unlicensed PCS (1.9 GHz)? Because the rules there were not nearly as favorable as the "we'll build good systems, make 'em cheap, and take our chances" 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz bands. I'm not trying to say that the rules are sacrosanct, nor that were they designed to have the very positive outcome they've produced (such as the entire WISP industry), or that we couldn't theoretically do better. But we HAVEN'T figured out how to do it better yet, despite having opportunities like 3650 to do so. However it happened, we're seeing incredible innovation in the license-exempt bands under the current rules. So for now, let's NOT tinker with what's DEMONSTRATABLY working in those very small portions of spectrum where innovation is allowed to occur unfettered by the "Mother, May I?" paradigm that has been applied across the rest of the RF portions of the electromagnetic spectrum in the US. If you want "certainty" in the use of RF, mandated cooperation / "play nice"... there's AMPLE licensed spectrum going completely unused. That particular groups cannot make use of that vacant spectrum... THAT is a real problem that has yet to be effectively addressed. Thanks, Steve On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Patrick Leary wrote: > "A secondary flaw is that you read into the "spirit" of the rules that > "efficiency" is a desireable trait of systems that operate in the > license-exempt bands. It isn't - NOTHING in the FCC rules describes or > encourages efficiency. It's simply not there." > > ...exactly my point, it is not there. But that does not mean that it should > not be, nor does it mean that the FCC is not interested in efficient use. > > Steve, I simply refuse to accept that the current rules are sacrosanct, > there are not, and the proposed rules for 3650MHz bolter my case. In > 3650MHz, the FCC made strong and specific reference that they well might not > accept products that they believed were designed not to, play nice, so to > speak. The FCC clearly understands many of the flaws of Part 15 and they > looked upon 3650MHz as a clean slate. > > Patrick Leary > AVP Marketing > Alvarion, Inc. > o: 650.314.2628 > c: 760.580.0080 > Vonage: 650.641.1243 --- 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/
RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update
rules without > knowing really what might become of them. However, these rules are not > natural imperatives and there is no reason why they cannot be evolved in a > method that will advance the simple goal of using the spectrum as > efficiently as possibly in service of the public interest (being UL > spectrum, decisions should be made with interests of the public at heart > first, not necessarily in the interest of commercial operators or > suppliers). > > Imagine what these same new entrants might be able to do with their > technology with better rules. > > Patrick Leary > AVP Marketing > Alvarion, Inc. > o: 650.314.2628 > c: 760.580.0080 > Vonage: 650.641.1243 --- 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/
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 out the seeming lack of investment from the largest players. For example, though Alvarion deigns to participate in the municipal mesh Wi-Fi business, that doesn't seem to be hurting that business as that leaves lots of room for smaller players - Tropos, SkyPilot Networks, BelAir Networks, etc., all offering ample innovation and good performance in providing a service that the conventional wisdom says that wasn't possible. Thanks, Steve On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Patrick Leary wrote: > Tom, > > You correctly identify the Achilles Heel of modern day UL -- the survival of > the nastiest phenomenon. The Part 15.247 rules give equal standing to all > types of systems, regardless of how spectrally gluttonous or abusive. The > problem with this is that it rewards downward innovation (i.e. dumb and > inefficient), offering no incentives for developers to invest R&D to come up > with more efficient, higher performing PMP techniques. There is no reward > for high performance, especially in PMP where devices are most vulnerable to > interference. This is a genuine reason why there is so little real > investment in PMP UL. I am not talking about the creative, small market > developing and tinkering that goes on, but rather the multi-millions of > serious R&D investment such as that seen on the licensed side. > > As well, the logical extension of this problem is that WISP operators > themselves are not rewarded in a spectrum sense by using the most efficient > systems. > > [I should insert a note here that recognizes that bringing to market a > system that might be considered spectrally abusive so that it itself > survives, all while conforming perfectly within the regulations, may be > considered to be an entirely sound, even smart, competitive strategy -- the > rules do not require me to play well with others, so I'm going to do > everything I can to make sure I do not, within the rules of course. However, > markets are not fond of investing in R&D to get around artificial problems, > i.e. problems created by easily manipulated regulations.] > > Back in 2002 I was one a few panelists representing the UL BWA market (Steve > Stroh was there too on another panel) on the FCC's Spectrum Policy Task > Force. The panel I was on was to recommend and debate the evolution of the > UL bands. Most were up there thinking WLAN, not WMAN, and they did not even > understand the implication of their proposals in the outdoor, metro scale > world of wireless. A few were up there saying we needed more power for > rural. > > My input regarded changing the rules to allow for some type of sliding > higher power rules based on better efficiency, a
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
Tom: My defense of Alvarion is pretty mild. They're definitely drifting down the innovation curve, not up. They're incredibly arrogant about not doing Wi-Fi despite the growing, impressive wins of Wi-Fi mesh vendors. They're not doing mesh, etc. They now are involved pretty deeply in the cellular and WiMAX industry, and that seems to have the vast majority of their corporate attention. But, in their (mild) defense, they're meeting the demands from their identified customers. (They don't seem to recognize what a trap this can be; apparently no one there has read "The Innovator's Dilemma".) There are certainly WISPs that come really close to a working definition of carrier-grade; I didn't mean to imply that they didn't exist. Great points, all - yours was one of the best pieces of reading I've seen on the WISP-related lists in a long time - it elevated the SNR. Thanks, Steve On Apr 12, 2006, at 17:28, Tom DeReggi wrote: Steve, excellent points. except... (also see inline) By your definition of Carrier grade, I could argue that many WISPs that just so happen not to use Alvarion, may very well better meet the definition of carrier grade than the carriers themselves. One of the negatives about the Alvarion product is that they have fallen victom to the IBM syndrom. They try and be the best and standardize on that, but then they lock them selves into a box with a limited product, and get left behind as far as features and product enhancements. IBM lost the war to Clones, because Clones were able to innovate faster and deliver more competitive products sooner. Alvarion, has tried to full fill the role of carrier grade, probably better than any other manufacturer, from the perspective of the support level carrier demand, and quality of the manufacturing of the product. But ultimately, where does Alvarion stand technology wise? Are they leading? Thats debatable. For example: Alvarion still 1. Single Freq range per radio unit. 2. Single polarity per radio unit. Limitations even the cheapest manufacturers have overcome. Many businesses operational savings are being had by WISPs chosing other third party wireless gear, allowing their operations to be more carrier class. (less stock, fewer components needed per truck, easier ordering, lower pricing, consistent OS interfaces, etc). I'm not just targeting Alvarion in my complaint. How many manufactturers have taken advantage os new smart antenna technologies or FCC rules for higher power or new freq ranges? For companies like Alvarion to stay on top as a leading Carrier grade company, they are going to have to break out of the IBM mold, and start innovating quicker. They are starting to do that, by comming out with Wimax and 4.9Ghz gear quicker than other competitors in the space. WISPs pass. (Alvarion not required to do so) WISPs fail. 1 minute outages every month or so must be tolerated. Even Alvarion is known for occasional auto system reboots when harsh interence is encountered. WISPs pass and shine. But not aware of any Carrier Telco that passes that requirement. Less likely with Alvarion, as more models need to be stocked, to ahve all conceivable replacement models. WISPs pass. Telco's generally Fail. Not many Companies keep $100,000 switches on hand for quick replacement. Yes. But not aware of many Telcos that have a faster response time in their Tarrifs, than good local WISPs. WISPs put in a valient effort, but fail or barely pass. Telcos pass and shine, throwing millions of dollars away in over engineering. So although they shine, its responsible for the bankruptcy of 25 of the largest 29 Telcos through year 2001. WISPs pass. However, where Telcos shine, is 100s of commercial product are available to collect and store and track the statistics to backup SLA guarantees. WISPs can offer and fullfil the same SLAs maybe even better, but can they prove it? Every WISPs product manufacturer offers this. The only reason all WISPs may not have it, is their decission not to pay for it, as they don't have a huge staff to justify it, when they know it already. Telcos pass. Most WISP networks do not. Open Source, provides more options for improvements and impowers the WISP, but no guarantees are there that it will continue to be given or at what success rate. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc Budget being only difference, and WISP qualify for carrier better than ILEC in some cases. --- 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/
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
been put-off by a perceived arrogance I have seen by some Alvarion representatives who have insisted previously that they had the "only" viable solution for wireless broadband and seemed as though they were claiming almost a "holier than thou" behavior toward anyone stating another opinion than their own. I have also seen a terribly biased negative attitude toward Alvarion by many WISPs who wanted to drive home the "WISP=Cheap" mentality to the point of alienating Alvarion from our entire market segment. Both Alvarion and most WISPs have lost a great ally in each other and I suspect both sides have suffered from such negativity. I am hoping to see this division closed between the typical WISP operator and Alvarion. --- 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/
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
Motorola designed Canopy specifically for the WISP market, not the carrier market. Alvarion designed VL specifically for the carrier market, not the WISP market. Thanks, Steve On Apr 11, 2006, at 18:55, Dylan Oliver wrote: How is any product qualified as 'Carrier-Grade'? What is it about Alvarion VL that makes the cut vs. Canopy? Lord knows Motorola produces far more 'Carrier-Grade' equipment than Alvarion ever will - so where did they go wrong with Canopy? Also, I've heard lately several complaints that Waverider has trouble sustaining even 1 Mbps throughput ... what is your experience, John? Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC-- --- 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/
Re: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX?
Matt: The "capabilities" of WiMAX ALREADY exist in the proprietary products of Alvarion, Redline, Aperto Networks, etc. WiMAX is a standardization of the lowest-common-denominator of those capabilities, with certified interoperability. If you've waited this long for "WiMAX" capabilities, and don't care about interoperability... you've waited several years longer than you needed to. Thanks, Steve On Apr 5, 2006, at 09:02, Matt Liotta wrote: The entire point of WiMAX may be interoperability, but from a fixed wireless standpoint interoperability is meaningless. When and if mobile WiMAX becomes interesting interoperability will be important. Until then there is no need for it in a fixed wireless network, so the certification badge isn't desirable. What is desirable is the capabilities of the radios. We certainly want to see 802.16-based radios in 5.8Ghz. -Matt --- 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/
Re: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX?
Jeff: If a system hasn't been through the interoperability testing, it ISN'T WiMAX - at all. Absent the certification of interoperability, at best what the vendors will be shipping and selling prior to achieving certification is a proprietary product with perhaps some "WiMAX features". Vendors have been known to change their mind about guaranteeing "upgrade to final specifications" and likely a number of vendors will ship products and completely eschew the formalities of WiMAX interoperability certification. Nothing wrong with that unless they try to pull a fast one trying to associate such products with WiMAX, implying interoperability, where none is actually guaranteed. There is not, and cannot be, 4.9 GHz "WiMAX" products because there is not, nor is there likely to be, a WiMAX Forum profile for 4.9 GHz given that band is US only, and the US is projected to be a minor market for WiMAX gear. So those vendors that claim to be, or soon will be, shipping "4.9 GHz WiMAX" gear are in fact shipping a PROPRIETARY system; absent WiMAX certification, there's no guarantee whatsoEVER of interoperability. The entire POINT of WiMAX is interoperability! The market is going to have to sort out the vendors who falsely claim "WiMAX" for their systems; apparently the WiMAX Forum has no intention of doing so. Thanks, Steve On Apr 4, 2006, at 21:37, Jeffrey Thomas wrote: That is correct, however those companies are expected to be shipping product ( and are taking pre orders ) that will comply with the testing whenever the gods at wimaxforum decide to get off their collective arses and certify 5.8. Airspan for example, already has wimax 4.9 product and is getting FCC certification. So in conclusion, yes on product, no on the interop profile or tests yet. - Jeff --- 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/
Re: [WISPA] Un- licensed WIMAX?
Neat trick... considering... There is not yet a WiMAX 5.8 GHz interoperability profile. Because there is not yet a WiMAX 5.8 GHz WiMAX interoperability profile, there have not yet been any 5.8 GHz interoperability tests. Because there has not yet been any WiMAX 5.8 GHz interoperability tests, there cannot be any WiMAX 5.8 GHz products certified as having completed the tests and declared interoperable. And, unless a product has been through the interoperability tests and declared interoperable, it cannot use the WiMAX brand name. Nope - no _5.8 GHz_ (license-exempt is assumed) WiMAX products. PERHAPS by year end... but I suspect it will be longer given that the vendors are going to be VERY busy selling all the 3.5 GHz (licensed, non-US markets) gear they can make AND getting Mobile WiMAX out will consume the available interoperability testing facilities and the attentions of the Mobile portions of the WiMAX industry. 5.8 GHz WiMAX is kind of an afterthought at the moment for the WiMAX industry. Thanks, Steve On Apr 4, 2006, at 11:37, jeffrey thomas wrote: George, Yes there is. Airspan and Aperto both have products and are taking orders now. - Jeff On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 08:16:46 -0700, "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: What is going on with unlicensed WIMAX? Is there any products released yet or about to be released? Thanks George --- 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/
Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2
MMDS/ITFS/BRS is approximately 190 MHz (I don't remember what the FCC's fiddling at the lower end to create BRS out of ITFS/MMDS added or subtracted. 5.4 GHz band is 255 MHz. Original 800 MHz cellular spectrum was 50 MHz and sparked cellular telephone industry in the US using analog technology. So, stating "only" 50 MHz at 3.65 GHz may well not evoke much "empathy" at the FCC. FYI, my math on license-exempt use of the "WHOLE TV band" is: Channels 21 – 36 (512 MHz – 608 MHz) = 96 MHz Channels 38 – 51 (614 MHz – 698 MHz) = 84 MHz Total 180 MHz in 6 MHz increments. Thanks, Steve On Mar 28, 2006, at 09:46, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Understood. But it is only 50 mhz. How much is itfs? How much is mmds? How much was the new 5.4 gig band? Part of what we're looking for is the WHOLE TV band. I remember Patrick saying that none of you manufacturers were at all excited about 3650 because there just wasn't enough spectrum there to make it useful! My how times change. grin. Your point is well taken though. What would you suggest as an alternative? What are other people's thoughts? thanks, 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 --- 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/
Re: [WISPA] 5.4 very close now
Rick: I think you're confused with 3.65 GHz (still in the works, FCC proposed "contention-based" sharing mechanism.) This is an additional 255 MHz of spectrum around 5.4 GHz and IT requires Dynamic Frequency Sharing (I think?) - DFS - basically if the radio hears a US DOD RADAR system, it changes channels to get out of the way. It's low power, but some interesting gear should come out for high-bandwidth, relatively short-range. Mac: It IS "available to everyone" - we'll see it used for WLANs. Good news is that it may well be enough to "encourage" WLANs and cordless phones to use that portion of the spectrum instead of 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz. Thanks, Steve On Mar 6, 2006, at 08:47, Rick Harnish wrote: Mac, As far as I know, the hardware/software has to be contention based to be allowed to use the spectrum. I would doubt if many consumer devices will be allowed to operate in this spectrum. I can tell you that Orthogon has already released the firmware upgrade for the Gemini product to be used for the 5.4 Spectrum. http://www.orthogonsystems.com/support/software.html I just sent an email to them about the release date for the Spectra upgrade. Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband & Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Office 260-307-4000 Cell 260-918-4340 VoIP www.oibw.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 11:02 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 5.4 very close now Marlon, Please excuse my ignorance, but is this spectrum going to be turned loose to every wireless consumer grade appliances known to man or is this going to be something that is going to be released for the WISP? I know that I am dreaming here!! Thanks, Mac Dearman Maximum Access, LLC. Authorized Barracuda Reseller MikroTik RouterOS Certified www.inetsouth.com www.mac-tel.us www.RadioResponse.org (Katrina Relief) Rayville, La. 318.728.8600 318.303.4228 318.303.4229 --- 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/
Re: [WISPA] TRANGO!!
Tom: To me, sell @ Radio Shack = consumer = unique connector, sell @ Tessco = professional = standard connector. YMMV It IS a hard thing to enforce. It was written assuming good intent by the manufacturers. It's been the case that some manufacturers have had to change from standard connectors to unique connectors, and some "unique" connectors became not unique enough for the FCC's taste. I was told once what the distinction was that the FCC uses between unique and standard RF connectors... but I was asked not to make it public. It's amusing, and simple. Thanks, Steve On Jan 26, 2006, at 14:09, Tom DeReggi wrote: Thanks. I was not aware of that. Does that mean that once a manufacturer installs a N connector on their gear, it no longer is allowed to be sold at Radio Shack or Walmart. Does that Mean WiMaxwill never be allowed to be sold at Walmart legally? Does this mean that oncethey add an N connector they are no longer allowed to sell it to a municipality (an end user) unless they sell it through a reseller/consultant that will provide the work? Who is to define who is the general publicversus skilled engineer? And is thisdetermined by the purchaser or the distributor? If sold through Tessco a company specializing in dealing with RF specialists, can the end user buy it from them, if the sales rep decides to sell to a home person? Does it mean it can't be distributed through Radio Shack if they have a policy to check that the buyer is a professional installer? Linksys sells both to consumers and RF specialists. If one product is labeled as"consumer line" or labeled "professional series", even if its the exact same product, does it define its right to use N connector? I think there are simple ways to answer those questions, when everyone is working in good faith. But if it ever came push to shove, it would be a hard thing to enforce. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband --- 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/
Re: [WISPA] TRANGO!!
Tom: The "unique connector" isn't required IF the equipment is intended for, marketed, and distributed to be installed by "professional installers" (who can be reasonably assumed to be able to do the math and not use an antenna which results in violation of Part-15 EIRP limits.) "Unique connector" requirement was intended for consumer gear like Wi-Fi APs, wireless video cameras, etc. sold through the mass market. Completely ironic and ineffective; laughable even when you consider that you can get high-gain antennas for the Linksys AP "unique connectors" at Radio Shack. I strongly prefer a good old reliable, sturdy easy-to-weatherproof Type N connector on outdoor gear. Thanks, Steve On Jan 18, 2006, at 17:19, Tom DeReggi wrote: Required for FCC reuirement of unique connector rule. PErsonally Ip refer them to stay as is with the connectors. That way they all stay the same and one cable to stock. Tom DeReggi --- 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/
Re: [WISPA] soldering radio's
The big difference is that Last Mile Gear is MOTOROLA authorized to do such modifications, and THEY have had THEIR modifications FCC certified. Stating this question in public is a gigantic invitation for competitors to invite the FCC in for a chat and a looksee given the now-documented (here on the list) possibility that there are illegally modified Part-15 gear radios in use. Thanks, Steve On Jan 23, 2006, at 17:33, Brian Rohrbacher wrote: Maybe I am getting this wrong, but isn't Kurt just trying to do this https://www.lastmilegear.com/catalog/product_info.php? cPath=44&products_id=366 Basically modify Canopy? What is so wrong with that? --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://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] Coverage in Southeast Missouri?
Any WISPs in Southeast Missouri? I was contacted by a nice Deputy Sherriff who had bought his own laptop for doing work in his patrol car and was hoping to find at least partial mobile Broadband coverage in his area (444 square miles, as he describes it.) If you provide service in Southeast Missouri, please contact me off list and I'll put you and the Deputy Sherriff in touch. Thanks, Steve --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://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] Re: verizon fios - Advertising Battle
John: In years previous, the telcos had whittled away at UNE to the point that if they deployed "advanced services" in the last mile - read fiber, even an inch of it in the neighborhood cable vault (and the rest remained copper), then the telcos didn't have to share. But if there was a copper loop from the home/business to the CO, UNE applied. That was then. But with a recent Federal appeals court ruling, UNE is no more. There is NO legal requirement for telcos to share their copper at ALL. Telcos have PRIVATE agreements to share the copper loop - Verizon just reached one with Covad, but now it's ENTIRELY at the OPTION of the telcos. For you that are working with telcos, usually smaller ones, that don't seem inclined to take advantage of this leverage, count your blessings - they may well be fleeting. The FCC wrangled something of a concession that the telcos wouldn't make major changes in existing UNE arrangements until June 2006. But after June, the gloves are completely off. A lot of ISP business models will be completely wrecked. You guys haven't been going to enough conferences and listening to very bright people like Kris Twomey try and explain such things to the (W)ISP industry. Shame on that Michael Anderson for putting Kris up in front of an audience to try to keep the WISP industry informed. Thanks, Steve On Dec 28, 2005, at 06:54, John Scrivner wrote: Can you explain this statement for me? Excuse my lack of knowledge here. What are you referring to as a MSA? Also let us hear a little more detail about this statement please. I thought if the service drop was used to deliver phone service that the telco had to allow UNE access to the line. This has changed? I knew it had gone away in terms of access to advanced broadband facilities like DSLAMs and such but I thought the RBOCs still had to give up access to subscriber lines regardless of the media? Please elaborate. Thank you, Scriv --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://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] Re: 70/80/90 GHz licensed, 60 GHz license-exempt
In the US, 70, 80, and 90 GHz are "licensed lite"; you do have to register them. Apologies for envisioning the delicious irony of the database being swamped with trying to track and coordinate 300' links. Not to mention that, if memory serves, there's a fee to register each one of those links. 57-64 GHz, on the other hand, is license-exempt. Thanks, Steve On Dec 27, 2005, at 18:34, John Scrivner wrote: The day is going to happen in the "not so distant" future when there will be CMOS based 70 to 90 Ghz radios the size of a pack of smokes. These will only effectively send data about a few hundred feet. These radios will do over 1 Gbps from day one. The idea is to run them back to back from street light pole to pole and have WiMAX, Wifi, 802.11a (insert your favorite client platform radio here) as the client access device to serve a few homes or businesses around the poles.. This gives us a platform for broadband, telephone and cable television all over wireless. This is not a pipe dream. I am about 2 weeks from having my first pole agreement signed. It is going to happen. The 70 Ghz gear is not going to be a long haul solution. It is going to be a real nice high throughput short haul solution to compete for triple play in cities and even smaller towns eventually. I plan to help prove this as a viable broadband platform in my own community. Now I just wish my friends at Intel would hurry up the development of those CMOS radios! They have all the patents and prototypes today. Bring on the GigE through the air! :-) Scriv --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://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/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Slides that didn't make it in time to be used
Rick: It's not so much that FCC personnel would know what they're looking at, but if it's distributed as part of the official record, any competitors to the WISP industry who do know they're looking at would be quick to point out any issues TO the FCC to discredit WISPs. ANYTHING that is submitted for "official record" should really be checked over for all the "i's" to be dotted and the "t's" to be crossed (offered from a survivor of more than a couple "oopses" that have made it into mass-circulation print.) Thanks, Steve On Sep 15, 2005, at 08:35, Rick Harnish wrote: Hmmm, I picked that picture because he had a safety belt onnot a full harness like I would like to see but there is a strap around the ladder. I wish I could get some pictures of those guys with full harnesses on. I have seen several unsafe pictures so far. I guess they do things differently in Louisianaargh. Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband & Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Office 260-307-4000 Cell 260-918-4340 VoIP www.oibw.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | Skype: stevestroh2 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://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] FCC Open Commission Meeting Moved To Atlanta
From: "Bullit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: September 14, 2005 11:36:19 PDT To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Emergency-Relief] P15 UPDATE Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi all Today at noon, I was required to submit my formal Commission briefing that was to be held tomorrow morning in Washington. The Commission had originally, back on Sep 12th asked me to provide an industry wide status report. That report was to be forwarded to the commission no later than noon, Washington time today. I was able to produce a document that I believe was a humble attempt to bring the FCC up to date. I also believe that the report has it's shortcomings. However, those shortings can and will be addressed during future updates. In essence, I was pressed for time on this one and did not nor could not include everything the industry is doing. I will continue to strive for more in-depth reporting. I found out late last night that the actual Commission meeting is being postponed and relocated to Atlanta, GA and although my report will be included in the overall Commission meeting, I will not be providing a presentation in person. Now onto future reporting - I still am in need of your continued status reporting from the field. Please continue to submit photos, emails and also the use of the form submission we have established at: http://www.part-15.org/emergencyrelief/report.asp Regards and keep up the great work everyone is doing. You are making a direct and significant difference. Michael -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Need Inputs...
Look folks... You can either try to unite the WISP industry (the Rick approach) for a better future, or try to continue to fragment it (the Charles approach). You can either try to grow beyond past mistakes and personality clashes... or keep rehashing the past mistakes and personality clashes over, and over, and over, to the ultimate detriment of the industry as a whole. The bottom line in this discussion is that there's going to be a suit up in front of the FCC on Thursday morning who is going to try his best (I'm convinced) to give an overview of what the WISP industry has done AS A WHOLE. To give credence to Rick's point of view on this, he has been plugged into MUCH (not quite all, but MUCH) of what has been going on with the efforts of PART-15.ORG members. I've been privy to some of the communications between the two "sides", and both Rick and Michael are bending over backwards trying to do the right things for the industry as a whole. It may well never be "happy-happy" between the two sides, but there's been more progress in the last ten days to grow beyond the "troubles" than in the previous two years. Charles, basically, has NO clue about what's been going on other than what he reads on wireless@wispa.org and in turn expresses a knee-jerk reaction of "Michael Anderson BAD" and "WISPA efforts GOOD". While I'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat of who's done more, better, faster, etc., I will state that quite apart from the unfortunate experience of the "Kelly WISP incident", PART-15.ORG has is doing some of the same things as the WISPA contingent. It's hardly the case that Anderson / PART-15.ORG is trying to claim credit for the enormous good that the WISPA contingent has done. For one thing, it would be ludicrous to do so given that the WISPA contingent has succeeded in garnering some favorable mentions for WISPA's work in national press. It's also the case that some of the lessons learned and the donations and volunteer management expertise that PART-15.ORG developed in the last week are being leveraged to help the WISPA contingent. Choose your course. Thanks, Steve On Sep 13, 2005, at 09:00, Charles Wu wrote: Well, if you look at it - w/out WISPA's efforts, there would be NOTHING to talk about it It would take approximately 30 seconds to introduce WISPA - and 4 1/2 minutes is plenty of time for a WISPA representative to talk WISPA has a good story to tell (heck, it made national news) - I think it would be best for someone from the front lines (maybe reward Mac for his initiative and efforts?) to tell the story -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | Skype: stevestroh2 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://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] Need Inputs From Hurricane Relief WISP Teams For FCC Presentation on Thursday
All: Michael, as usual, has understated this a bit a bit, so I'll step into the role of blatant Public Relations once more. There's a detailed explanation at http://www.part-15.org/emergencyrelief/fcc.html. Here's the terse version. Michael Anderson, Chairman of PART-15.ORG was asked to speak at the upcoming FCC Open Commission Meeting on Thursday morning. His speaking slot is 5 minutes. It's short in time, but a lot of content can be crammed into it, considering that he can breeze through the PowerPoint slides, talk fast, and people can look at the replay and the PowerPoint slides in detail later. He needs the inputs soon; Monday's gone already. That basically gives him Tuesday to put an short, effective, "punchy" presentation together. He flies from Chicago to DC on Wednesday. The more diverse input he gets, the sooner, the better and more representative the presentation can be. It SEEMS likely (we don't know for sure) that this meeting will have lots of press attending, since it's requested that all the entities under FCC jurisdiction (telephone, cable, broadcasting, public safety comms, etc.) do the same sort of presentation. So... we want the WISP industry to be WELL represented, and it will be with YOUR inputs. To be clear... CRYSTAL clear... Michael was NOT asked to speak to represent just PART-15.ORG. He was asked to speak to represent the WISP industry as a whole. Michael would like your input. The web page above has some suggestions for interesting input to Michael. The form found, linked at the bottom of the web page, (at http://www.part-15.org/emergencyrelief/report.asp if you'd prefer to skip reading the long, wordy web page) has additional suggestions on what to mention. Photos would be great; again, more info at the two URLs. Please - take some time out of your activities to provide your inputs. Thanks, Steve Begin forwarded message: From: "Bullit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: September 12, 2005 18:44:38 PDT To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Emergency-Relief] P15 UPDATE - IMMEDIATE RESPONSE REQUESTED Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.part-15.org/emergencyrelief/fcc.html Thank you Michael --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | Skype: stevestroh2 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://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] Kelly WISP Incident
me is short, the two may well be simply incompatible. To clear up any potential misconception, this is Steve Stroh’s account of the “Kelly WISP Incident”. Any errors in fact are mine. I asked Michael Anderson for some clarification on points, and Michael knew that I would be posting this message, but he did not have any substantial input into what I was going to say, nor has he seen or approved the content of this message before it was posted to the list. I request that you not make this message public. I will be putting out a more generic “WISPs weren’t needed at Kelly, redirecting those resources to directly support WISPs” statement for public consumption soon. I felt strongly that the direct participants in PART-15.ORG’s efforts relating to Kelly were owed a complete explanation and getting this out to the lists was my first priority. Thanks, Steve --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | Skype: stevestroh2 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://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] Part-15.Org Leads WISP Industry Response to Hurricane Katrina Wireless Internet Access Relief Efforts
Part-15.Org Leads WISP Industry Response to Hurricane Katrina Wireless
Internet Access Relief Efforts
By now, you’re probably aware that Part-15.Org is working with the FCC
to get Wireless ISPs involved in the Hurricane Katrina recovery effort.
Here is some detail, current as of 9/4/2005, 4:30 PM Eastern.
First and foremost, Part-15.Org isn’t “coming to the rescue”. Nor is
the FCC. At the specific request of the FCC, Part-15.Org is acting as a
clearinghouse for the WISP industry in advising the FCC on the
collective capabilities that the WISP industry is prepared to offer –
available personnel, available equipment, and various requirements.
This is being done with a web page data collection, which is in turn
periodically forwarded to the FCC.
The most up-to-date information on the web about the Part-15.Org relief
effort is posted at:
http://www.part-15.org/emergencyrelief/katrina.html.
This page includes links to the various information request forms. It
is strongly preferred that all offerings of support of all kinds –
equipment, personnel, financial be submitted via the forms. If you can
offer support that needs rapid coordination and feedback (larger teams,
already in transit, special capabilities), please contact:
Claudia Crowley, Project Coordinator for Part-15.Org Katrina Relief,
email - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
“Emergency-Relief” is an established and well-used mailing list to
coordinate the various efforts already underway and planned –
subscribing to it is the most efficient way to be “in the loop”.
The subscription URL is:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] to Emergency-Relief
List &body=subscribe
Emergency-Relief Volunteer &subject=Subscribe To Emergency-Relief List
Here's a shortened version: http://tinyurl.com/boxe9
Archives for “Emergency-Relief” can be found at:
http://archives.part-15.org/listarchive.asp?maillist=Emergency-Relief.
A lot of the questions you probably have will be answered by browsing
the archives.
At the FCC, the WISP industry is only part of the picture for restoring
communications in the affected areas. They’re tasked with the bigger
picture of trying to help restore ALL communications – public safety
two way radios, broadcasting, telephone, EVERYTHING. That the FCC
recognized the WISP industry could indeed help in the relief effort,
and asked for their input, is strong positive recognition of the WISP
industry.
The FCC is in turn providing the collected information to FEMA which is
in charge of the overall recovery effort. This is a fundamental point –
nothing will happen officially unless FEMA approves it.
If/when FEMA accepts and approves some or all of what Part-15.Org has
submitted, the selected individuals and organizations will be contacted
individually.
Part-15.Org is also involved in several parallel, smaller-scale efforts.
One smaller-scale effort is that Part-15.Org is deploying observers to
the disaster area for coordination purposes. The mission of the
observers is to report back to Part-15.Org what is happening in the
disaster area and what resources are needed (doing so from the
perspective of an experienced WISP that understands the capabilities of
WISPs).
Those observations allow Part-15.Org to “fine tune” the recommendations
that it is continually submitting to FCC/FEMA and the composition and
role of the teams that will be dispatched.
Another smaller-scale effort by Part-15.Org is to provide assistance to
those WISPs that are located in or near the affected areas. They are on
the ground, know the situation intimately, and are well-positioned to
provide immediate, tactical support. (Yes, there is obviously some
overlap between the two.)
{end}
---
Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | Skype: stevestroh2 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
http://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/
