Re: [WISPA] Water in your radios? Know your IP rating.
We have many customers near the coast, and we have a pile of Canopy 100 900 MHz radios that rusted off their mounts due to corrosion. Another pile has units where the Ethernet connectors essentially *rotted* because the installers did not use silicon grease inside the units on the back of the ethernet conenctors and polyphenyl ether on the connectors itself. So while waterproof may not be crucial, being rated and used for the particular purpose is. Daniel Mullen Island Telecom Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com wrote .. If my subscribers homes are underwater their internet is the least of my worries. Ok. I'm playing hardball - but seriously. Sell us on why having a waterproof CPE is necessary? On Nov 8, 2014, at 11:54 AM, Patrick Leary patrick.le...@telrad.com wrote: ...links have 2 sides - Patrick From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 9:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Water in your radios? Know your IP rating. My towers do not flood 80 feet in the air. On Nov 7, 2014, at 9:22 PM, Patrick Leary patrick.le...@telrad.com wrote: Conversations over the past several weeks make clear many are not aware of the meaning of the environmental specifications, in particular the IP rating. It matters, as the nature of your environment informs you about the gear you need to use. Do you have broad temperature swings? Thermal expansion can cause cracking around connector housings in some levels of gear. Ice storms? Nothing exploits a crack like freezing water. Operate near the desert? Dust protection matters. Near the coast? Salt is highly corrosive. Are you complaining about water getting into your boxes? If you don't know the IP rating, you really can't complain becuase you may be using the gear beyond its specs. As in the law, ignorance is no defense, so in the interest of dispelling ignorance, here's a quick tutorial on the IP rating. First, it's not sequential. I mean, the two digits have no relation to each other. In that sense it is NOT a number: IP55 does not mean IP fifty-five, but rather is more appropriately thought of as IP five five. Come again?!? Well, the first number refers to protection level from particulate matter -- solids -- like dust and sand. The second number deals with protection from liquid incursion. (There can be a third number, usually left out, that deals with mechanical tolerance.) In any event, here's the key to crack the code: image002.png image005.png Know the rating of your equipment, at both ends. Environmental truck rolls are almost 100% avoidable. Environmental failure at the base station impacts the whole sector. Failures at the CPE level can cause repeated truck rolls and is a time sink trying to identify root cause before the truck rolls. Outdoor devices with a first digit of 5 or less, will take in dust. Similarly, anything with a second number of 6 or below will take on water because it was not designed not to. These are consequential specifications. You'd better believe your telco or cable competition has minimum environmental requirements as a rule. Are you any less serious a player in your market? Control those variables within your control. Regards, Patrick Leary National Sales Director | Telrad Networks Ltd. M 727.501.3735 | Skype pleary image004.png See us on image003.png This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] small 24GHz radio
Hi Bryce, Of course - there is an 8 antenna - 20 cm for us in Canada - that will do the job. I do not know if it is an ETSI Class 4 antenna, which everyone should use if they can, but the Andrew VHLP200-38 is small enough. Keep in mind it would not be a dual-polarized antenna at that size. Daniel Mullen Bryce Duchcherer bduc...@netago.ca wrote .. Does anybody know of a 24GHz radio that is smaller than 1'? It doesn't have to go very far, but we are wanting 24GHz. Bryce D NETAGO ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] UBNT RocketAC spotted on FCC site
So if this is the 'Rocket M5 AC PTP Lite' you should expect something above this as well. Any ideas? Daniel Mullen ISN Inc. Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote .. https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=ExhibitsRequestTimeout=500calledFromFrame=Napplication_id=527992fcc_id=SWX-RM5ACPTP Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] UBNT RocketAC spotted on FCC site
I saw that as well. But again, if this is the Lite product, is there a higher level product to come, perhaps with GPS? Daniel Mullen ISN Inc. Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote .. Says PTMP comes with a firmware upgrade. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Zach Underwood z...@zachunderwood.me wrote: Have a look at this http://www.ubnt.com/airmax/rocket-ac/ On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:44 PM, wi...@metrocom.ca wrote: So if this is the 'Rocket M5 AC PTP Lite' you should expect something above this as well. Any ideas? Daniel Mullen ISN Inc. Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote .. https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=ExhibitsRequestTimeout=500calledFromFrame=Napplication_id=527992fcc_id=SWX-RM5ACPTP Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Zach Underwood (RHCE,RHCSA,RHCT,UACA) cheapvpscloud.com http://cheapvpscloud.com/link.php?id=1 My website http://zachunderwood.me/ ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] face time issue
I have had a few customers call me recently with issues getting on face time. One customer cam to my office to tell me, so she tried and it worked. I had a guy at her house yesterday and no matter what we did nothing happened, however everything else worked. I had a personal customer that I visited the other night and the same thing. I fired up my hot spot on my cell phone and she worked fine. I ran a test at my house and it worked. The 2 customers in question were using ipad. My techs carry iphone, as well as my family at my house. I do have some other funky things going on my network, I would like to contribute them to these issues, but maybe I am missing something. heith___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] package ideas
So, I am going to be twisting on the owners soon. I need to start offering different packages to our customers, getting tired of people wanting more speed. If they want more than everyone they need to pay for it. So, aside from special instances, the vast majority of our subs pay $45 per month for unlimited usage. No real statement on speed, but typically we set most to a stream of 1.6 meg or so, enough where they can run Netflix in basic definition with no buffering. We have some set to a little more depending on needs. If I can get by they usually get 512 up down with some bursting, but those are far and few between with streaming media. I was thinking of setting all of those users to 1.5 or 2 meg for the $45 and jumping to a 5 meg package for $69 per month. I currently charge most businesses $69, they may not get much more speed just expedited service from us if they have issues. I was also thinking, if I can stretch it out, to 10 meg for $100 a month. We are negotiating for more bandwidth from our upstream shortly, I believe our towers are capable of of meeting these needs for the most part. If not I am hoping the prospect of selling more will offset the additional upgrade costs I figure if only 10 percent of the $45 customers upgraded to $69 it would generate an additional $50k a year. Anyways I wanted to throw it out to you folks to see what they have experienced in doing similar situations. I am sure I will get some back lash from certain areas where a competitor might be able to do something better or cheaper or customers that want it all for nothing, the ones who think they are getting screwed anyways heith___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] pay per use billing
I am starting to get hit by part time users going to their fishing house on the weekends. I also have customers that were on seasonal plans where their internet was shut down while they were gone, however they needed an active connection for remote access to thermostats and cameras. So what’s an average price for selling usage based service? We currently do not offer it now, but I may want to try it out on these instances thanks heith___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] pay per use billing
So, you just switch the package at that time for that cost? I don’t think I will have a lot of them but everyone is buying 2 or 3 houses nowadays. Of course around here everyone heads south for the winter From: Sam Tetherow Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 3:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] pay per use billing We don't do usage based, for something like thermostats I would set them to 128k/128k or 512k/512k and charge them $20ish. The camera's I would charge them full rate because they are going to use a lot of bandwidth depending on how often they are view them. On 05/06/2014 03:03 PM, wi...@mncomm.com wrote: I am starting to get hit by part time users going to their fishing house on the weekends. I also have customers that were on seasonal plans where their internet was shut down while they were gone, however they needed an active connection for remote access to thermostats and cameras. So what’s an average price for selling usage based service? We currently do not offer it now, but I may want to try it out on these instances thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] package ideas
is that something you’ve done and people pay for that? I need to do some market research for these customers. A lot of customers are “stuck” with me, might leave a bad taste when in town customers can get 30 meg for $50 or so a month. I have customers beating me for more speeds but I have a lot that think they are getting robbed at what they get now LOL From: John Thomas Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 3:51 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] package ideas How about adding 5 Meg at $79, then 10 Meg at $109? wi...@mncomm.com wrote: So, I am going to be twisting on the owners soon. I need to start offering different packages to our customers, getting tired of people wanting more speed. If they want more than everyone they need to pay for it. So, aside from special instances, the vast majority of our subs pay $45 per month for unlimited usage. No real statement on speed, but typically we set most to a stream of 1.6 meg or so, enough where they can run Netflix in basic definition with no buffering. We have some set to a little more depending on needs. If I can get by they usually get 512 up down with some bursting, but those are far and few between with streaming media. I was thinking of setting all of those users to 1.5 or 2 meg for the $45 and jumping to a 5 meg package for $69 per month. I currently charge most businesses $69, they may not get much more speed just expedited service from us if they have issues. I was also thinking, if I can stretch it out, to 10 meg for $100 a month. We are negotiating for more bandwidth from our upstream shortly, I believe our towers are capable of of meeting these needs for the most part. If not I am hoping the prospect of selling more will offset the additional upgrade costs I figure if only 10 percent of the $45 customers upgraded to $69 it would generate an additional $50k a year. Anyways I wanted to throw it out to you folks to see what they have experienced in doing similar situations. I am sure I will get some back lash from certain areas where a competitor might be able to do something better or cheaper or customers that want it all for nothing, the ones who think they are getting screwed anyways heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] pay per use billing
Well, in South Dakota we have a lot of them, but not near enough as you. I suppose yours comes down to our state like the Canadian Geese do From: Josh Reynolds Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 3:48 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] pay per use billing South for the winter Where are you located again? - sent from Alaska Josh Reynolds Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com On 05/06/2014 12:46 PM, wi...@mncomm.com wrote: So, you just switch the package at that time for that cost? I don’t think I will have a lot of them but everyone is buying 2 or 3 houses nowadays. Of course around here everyone heads south for the winter From: Sam Tetherow Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 3:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] pay per use billing We don't do usage based, for something like thermostats I would set them to 128k/128k or 512k/512k and charge them $20ish. The camera's I would charge them full rate because they are going to use a lot of bandwidth depending on how often they are view them. On 05/06/2014 03:03 PM, wi...@mncomm.com wrote: I am starting to get hit by part time users going to their fishing house on the weekends. I also have customers that were on seasonal plans where their internet was shut down while they were gone, however they needed an active connection for remote access to thermostats and cameras. So what’s an average price for selling usage based service? We currently do not offer it now, but I may want to try it out on these instances thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] pay per use billing
Possibly. We just recently got into hot spot last year at some state camp grounds. I might be a little grey in that area. We just set up a tower at a resort site where people have their fishing trailers, but they are willing to pay our full monthly and auto suspend when the weather gets cold From: ralph Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 4:28 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] pay per use billing ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] Cisco POE
Anyone know where you can get the 341-0212-01 for the new Aironet 1602 at a decent price? We are doing a project that they provided the equipment through a grant. They provided one big cisco switch that does POE, but we have wireless bridges to other buildings and no POE switches at the remote sites. Prices I found range from $40 to $80. The dumb thing about this project is they accepted us doing a UniFi system and a Mikrotik router, then all this cisco stuff showed up, however they are going to honor my proposal to install their stuff heith___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Cisco POE
I guess I wouldn’t need that one. They provided me with 2 of them, would need 4 more. Since its not my gear and I am ordering it, was all I was thinking. If something cheaper works that’s fine with me. thanks From: ralphli...@bsrg.org Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 1:14 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cisco POE Do you HAVE to have the Ethernet POE? I use them (have one in my hand now) but if I have local power I use the much cheaper AIR-PWR-B= They are about 8 bucks all over the place. The 3 ways I power a 1602: POE Switch Plug in power supply that connects to AP AIR-PWR-B= True POE injector. (the one you mention) 341-0212-01 Ralph -- From: wi...@mncomm.com To: WISPA General List [mailto:wireless@wispa.org] Sent: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:53:45 -0400 Subject: [WISPA] Cisco POE Anyone know where you can get the 341-0212-01 for the new Aironet 1602 at a decent price? We are doing a project that they provided the equipment through a grant. They provided one big cisco switch that does POE, but we have wireless bridges to other buildings and no POE switches at the remote sites. Prices I found range from $40 to $80. The dumb thing about this project is they accepted us doing a UniFi system and a Mikrotik router, then all this cisco stuff showed up, however they are going to honor my proposal to install their stuff heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] 3650 Omni
Just curious if others have deployed a 3650 Omni and to know if it was effective? We have a few sites that we use 3650 PTP and one with a 120 degree panel that cranks out some decent power. Of course we are always looking for areas that we can break up APs and get some RF separation. I ran into a competitor on the extreme north side of one of our competitors that has a customer using a M365 power bridge. From their registration on FCC the closest sites they have registered are over 20 miles away. Can this be done PtMP on 3650? I have a BH link doing 24 miles on Rockets but havent tried anything this distance PtMP. I assume they have a closer site that’s not fully registered on the FCC site as of yet. Anyways, just curious if omni was real effective. Just more or less looking for areas to throw on 15 to 20 subs to break down some overloaded M2 M5 AP. And if so, are you using UBNT antennas or KP or other thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] 3650 Omni
I know, but I have not been able to do 2 radios running on the same site that were both 3650 without killing each other. But, I appreciate the abuse again, Jack heith From: Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 12:48 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 Omni OMNI = Open (to) Monstrous Noise (and) Interference On 4/8/2014 7:55 AM, wi...@mncomm.com wrote: Just curious if others have deployed a 3650 Omni and to know if it was effective? We have a few sites that we use 3650 PTP and one with a 120 degree panel that cranks out some decent power. Of course we are always looking for areas that we can break up APs and get some RF separation. I ran into a competitor on the extreme north side of one of our competitors that has a customer using a M365 power bridge. From their registration on FCC the closest sites they have registered are over 20 miles away. Can this be done PtMP on 3650? I have a BH link doing 24 miles on Rockets but havent tried anything this distance PtMP. I assume they have a closer site that’s not fully registered on the FCC site as of yet. Anyways, just curious if omni was real effective. Just more or less looking for areas to throw on 15 to 20 subs to break down some overloaded M2 M5 AP. And if so, are you using UBNT antennas or KP or other thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author (2003) - Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks Serving the WISP Community since 1993 760-678-5033 jun...@ask-wi.com ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless wlEmoticon-winkingsmile[1].png___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] OT Fax over Voip
OK, I will. Right now its on my remote techs bench with a Cat5e cable and a switch between the 2 devices. Where this will be going is a farmers elevator site 150 feet between the 2 buildings using UBNT NSM5 radios, excellent quality. Right now they are using 5 VoIP NEC phones at the remote site, plus the same link is carrying their data needs as well, for 5 PCs. I didn’t build separate VLANs as it is a very small network. Regardless I cannot get these to work 10 feet to each other over cable. Voice works great. I will have my tech put together what he has done. He has several hours into it. Usually we wouldn’t dive into stuff too deep, but this customer also hosts a major site for us using their grain leg thanks heith -Original Message- From: Nathan Anderson Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 8:52 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT Fax over Voip On Monday, March 31, 2014 7:04 AM, wi...@mncomm.com wrote: So, the scenario would be the CO goes into a gateway device to convert to digital, goes over the LAN to the other gateway device. That device hooks up to the fax machine. If someone has done this before can you share the products you may have used? The products we have say they will work this way, but no luck, just voice transmission. I may have a bad device as well. If you are talking about a private point-to-point wireless link shot between two buildings across a parking lot or whatever, with excellent link quality characteristics and low jitter and latency, there is no reason that I can think of why moving the fax machine over wouldn't just work. Perhaps you could share with us the following: 1. Model of the Grandstream gateways in question. 2. How you have the gateways configured (e.g., codec being used and such). 3. What equipment you are using to do the wireless shot. 4. Average throughput, latency, and jitter across that link. 5. Whether the link is for phone use only, or is combined voice and data. 6. ...if combined, whether any kind of QoS is being employed to promote voice transmission ahead of data. ...and, most importantly... 7. What exactly happens when you try to send or receive a fax over the gateway devices. A vague it doesn't work description never helped anybody solve anything. :-) Give us details. How does it fail, exactly? How far along does it get? Is it able to transmit a partial page and then the connection drops? Or can it not even complete the handshake with the other fax machine? If it works for voice, I very much doubt you have a bad device, unless it is a software/firmware issue on the device(s). If the device was physically bad, I suspect the defect would present itself in other ways as well. General things to try out and to look out for: If you are using some fancy, efficient voice codec like G.729, turn that crap off. Limit both gateways to negotiate G.711u with each other only. If they have a T.38 option, make sure it is either enabled on both sides, or disabled on both sides...if there is a mismatch, some SIP stacks behave very badly if/when their re-INVITE to T.38 is rejected by the other peer. If the gateway devices support T.38 and it happens to be enabled, try turning it off. The T.38 spec is so vague as to often be useless, and there can be interop problems even between two identical devices (I swear that sometimes vendors don't test their own products...it's infuriating). And on a private, short-haul link like that, I would sure think that using G.711u PCM for both voice and fax transmission would be sufficient and pose no problems. On the other hand, if latency and jitter are sometimes a problem and the quality of the link is in doubt, and you haven't been using T.38, then by all means give T.38 a try, assuming your Grandstream devices can act as T.38 gateways (it's not enough for them to have T.38 passthrough support, they must have GATEWAY functionality). Once you finally get past all of the interop issues, T.38 really can work magic for FoIP on uncontrolled IP links. If you are using T.38 (or, heck, even if you aren't using T.38), try forcibly lowering the maximum modulation rate that their fax machine will attempt to handshake to the other side with. It is still (sadly) incredibly common for most production T.38 implementations these days to be based off of version 0, which does not include support for gatewaying V.34, only V.17. If they have a Super G3 fax machine, the T.38 gateway feature should in theory just ignore the handshake and not even engage and try to re-INVITE to T.38, but you never know...could be buggy. Or if you aren't using T.38, V.34 modulation rates could be more sensitive to timing and jitter issues. So limit the fax machine to 14400bps or 9600bps. Hope this helps, -- Nathan Anderson First Step Internet, LLC nath...@fsr.com ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org
[WISPA] OT Email Receipt
My owners asked this. Is there a way or a protocol that will allow you to be notified that an email recipient received or viewed your email, even if they refuse to acknowledge notification receipt? I don’t think there is but they seem to think they read something a while back thanks heith___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] OT Fax over Voip
I havent got my tech to log what he has done so far. Lines will connect to and from remote fax machines, no handshake apparently, no talky over the devices. I will be more descriptive shortly. Sucks that he is four hours away and a rookie compared to me with telephony, not that I am much better haha -Original Message- From: Fred Goldstein Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 5:08 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT Fax over Voip On 4/2/2014 5:24 PM, Nathan Anderson wrote: On Wednesday, April 02, 2014 6:55 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: But in addition to that, I STRONGLY recommend a separate VLAN for the voice-grade channels. With priority, or reserved bandwidth. TCP/IP in normal operation manages its flow rate by having packets thrown away; that's why the 1G LAN port on your PC doesn't blast a whole file at 1G into a 2M link. It uses packet loss as a signal. TCP applications retransmit and actual human voice is intelligible with some gaps, but modems, including fax, are very unhappy. Do note that RTP is implemented over UDP, not TCP, so in VoIP, a dropped audio packet is a lost audio packet, not a delayed or even out-of-order audio packet (although those other two things can happen...they just aren't a result of retransmits, or at least not a retransmit initiated by Layer 4). I guess my grammar was a bit rough there! So you're of course right. TCP applications retransmit. (period) Actual human voice (which doesn't retransmit, as it can't wait) is intelligible some gaps. Modes, however, including fax, are very unhappy with gaps. And stressing Nathan's previous note (*what* doesn't work?), this may be one of those *rare* occasions when a video (YouTube anyone?) might actually help. Although the audio alone is more important. If we could (see and) hear the call being dialed by the originating fax, hear what the ring sequence sounded like, and heard the response, with the speaker belching the CNG tone all along, it might help identify the problem. But really, fax and VoIP don't get along very well unless you really tune the VoIP network up to support it. And I know how some faxes are picky. My office fax line sat here virtually unused for years, but my wife needs to receive faxes regularly. Her fax is on a Comcast PacketCable (they call it VoIP but it's really managed VuIP) line that is shared with her office phone and answering machine. My fax (both are Brothers) can send hers a fax. The answering machine gives its spiel, starts to listen, then the fax hears CNG and cuts off the answering machine and sends modem tones. Just like it's supposed to work. But the fancy new fax server system at the courthouse just won't send to it. (Nor will some sizeable fraction of other machines.) It will send to mine, which isn't shared with an answering machine, but not one that is. Picky picky. Fax is like that. -- Fred R. Goldstein k1io fred at interisle.net Interisle Consulting Group +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] OT Time Clocks...
We use time clock plus. Has mobile and PC app for clocking in and out, lets you select your job, lets a manager know who is on the clock and who is not. Still have the issues of people forgetting to clock in and out. We do telephone system work here so it bills that department. End of the week I go thru and check things over before the accountant gets the hours and she cuts checks from there -Original Message- From: Bob Moldashel Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 5:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] OT Time Clocks... OK This is a little off topic as far as wireless goes but I am looking for a time clock to keep track of employee time. Presently we are on the honor system (and I don't have a problem with that...just too much manual labor for the bookkeeper) and they mark down their own time on a sheet. At the end of the pay period someone has to retrieve their time sheets, fax them to the office, and then add up the time, enter into Quickbooks and then print payroll. The crews turn out at a remote site that is not part of the main office. Its time to work smarter not harder. I am looking for a time clock that can be connected to the Internet at the warehouse and all time info will be accessible remotely. Anyone have any suggestions? Tnx -B- ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] OT Fax over Voip
I have a customer that we installed an IP phone system for. They moved their office to a new building where the telco couldn’t or wouldn’t bring service to. So I have the PBX at their old location where the COs come in and we go over a wireless link to the new office where they use their internet and IP phones, and all works great. So their fax machine sits at their old location and they want it in their new location. They are not interested in doing Internet fax at this time, but I may have to introduce it again. A while ago we bought some Grandstream gateway devices. We have them configured correctly and they transmit and receive voice just fine, just no fax. So, the scenario would be the CO goes into a gateway device to convert to digital, goes over the LAN to the other gateway device. That device hooks up to the fax machine. If someone has done this before can you share the products you may have used? The products we have say they will work this way, but no luck, just voice transmission. I may have a bad device as well. Also, is there any internet fax services that allow users to use their existing fax machine? I know it’s a little weird to ask that, but some people have a hard time with change using their PC to send faxes thanks heith mnwireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Motel WiFi Authentication
Yeah, I run a UniFi server at my office to drive the 3 HotSpot pay per use camp grounds we have and operate, but they are all driven from Mikrotik routers on site. I suppose we could run something here, but allocating its own server or virtual server locally could be beyond me. I bought a few slots on amazon aws before, just never dug into it too deeply yet heith -Original Message- From: Stuart Pierce Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 6:51 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Motel WiFi Authentication I've got Tik hotspots set up at a few towers and have setup usermanager for a retirement community. You definitely have more control with a Tik box but using Unifi with vouchers would be far easier. You can still host the Unifi server at your place if they do not keep a computer running and they can print out vouchers ahead of time or at the time. -- Original Message -- From: wi...@mncomm.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:11:44 -0500 Thanks! From: Bryce Duchcherer Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 2:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Motel WiFi Authentication I did a hotel a few months ago using UniFi and MikroTik. We are running Hotspot service on the MikroTik (RB1100AHx2) and UserManager. For user account creation I put in a HotSpot printer from Technologic. It uses API to create user accounts in UserManager so it is very easy for clerks to be able to create users for guests. You can set limits for days, speed, data transfer, etc. It’s not cheap, and not the easiest to set up but once it is in it works well. Check out www.hotspot-printer.com Another option, depending on the billing system they use, could be to use radius integrated with their billing system to create users. Or, you could just enable user manager and the clerk could create users in the web interface. If you want some more info shoot me an email off list. Bryce D bduc...@netago.ca From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of wi...@mncomm.com Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:24 To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Motel WiFi Authentication Not sure if I should post to UBNT or Mikrotik. Anyways we have a few motels that we run the UniFi APs in and they offer free use of the service. Of course its all you can eat for anyone across the street from the motel, or those who loiter in the parking lots. I havent really stayed in enough motels to see how they do them but what’s a way that users can get a temp username password when they check in? I havent dinked with it much on the UniFi. I can see how to do it, kind of, with hotspot on a Mikrotik, but I am not sure I would want a desk clerk dinking with the router. I am assuming that UniFi would be easier to use for this. Problem I have is with the few motels using UniFi they hardly ever keep the software running, and only turn it on when they need remote help from me. We have something similar set up with our ISP billing system for a few campgrounds where they create their own credential then pay a few, but I had to contract a lot of that out due to my inexperience. Maybe I need to look into the Amazon solution. Would be cool to run UniFi on a Mikrotik router. I also assume with them being authenticated we can track bandwidth hogs better. We have quite a few motels that have mostly permanent guests full time, people that never leave the room constantly downloading movies. On the unifi we could always see who they were by MAC only, but forcing someone to log in may help with the abuse. thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Sent via the WebMail system at avolve.net ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Motel WiFi Authentication
Yes, what Sam just said. No VPN as well, slam dunk using the Wiki From: Mark Spring Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:50 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Motel WiFi Authentication Heith, Do you run those back to your server over a vpn on the tik or is it all just local? I am planning on doing some unifi work in the near future and I'm just curious what others have run into when the unifi is not on your network. My knowledge of unifi is almost none, just trying to come up with some scenarios that would work best. It seems like others are confirming what I think you would run into, the unifi server just won't play that well on site for most installs. Thanks for your feedback! Mark Spring Systems Analyst New Knoxville Telephone Company 301 W. South St. New Knoxville, OH 45871 419.753.5000 This message and the file(s) attached are confidential and proprietary information of NKTelco for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any unauthorized review, distribution, disclosure, copying, use, or dissemination, either whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Do not transmit these documents, in any form, to any third party without the expressed written permission of NKTelco. On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:47 AM, wi...@mncomm.com wrote: Yeah, I run a UniFi server at my office to drive the 3 HotSpot pay per use camp grounds we have and operate, but they are all driven from Mikrotik routers on site. I suppose we could run something here, but allocating its own server or virtual server locally could be beyond me. I bought a few slots on amazon aws before, just never dug into it too deeply yet heith -Original Message- From: Stuart Pierce Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 6:51 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Motel WiFi Authentication I've got Tik hotspots set up at a few towers and have setup usermanager for a retirement community. You definitely have more control with a Tik box but using Unifi with vouchers would be far easier. You can still host the Unifi server at your place if they do not keep a computer running and they can print out vouchers ahead of time or at the time. -- Original Message -- From: wi...@mncomm.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:11:44 -0500 Thanks! From: Bryce Duchcherer Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 2:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Motel WiFi Authentication I did a hotel a few months ago using UniFi and MikroTik. We are running Hotspot service on the MikroTik (RB1100AHx2) and UserManager. For user account creation I put in a HotSpot printer from Technologic. It uses API to create user accounts in UserManager so it is very easy for clerks to be able to create users for guests. You can set limits for days, speed, data transfer, etc. It’s not cheap, and not the easiest to set up but once it is in it works well. Check out www.hotspot-printer.com Another option, depending on the billing system they use, could be to use radius integrated with their billing system to create users. Or, you could just enable user manager and the clerk could create users in the web interface. If you want some more info shoot me an email off list. Bryce D bduc...@netago.ca From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of wi...@mncomm.com Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:24 To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Motel WiFi Authentication Not sure if I should post to UBNT or Mikrotik. Anyways we have a few motels that we run the UniFi APs in and they offer free use of the service. Of course its all you can eat for anyone across the street from the motel, or those who loiter in the parking lots. I havent really stayed in enough motels to see how they do them but what’s a way that users can get a temp username password when they check in? I havent dinked with it much on the UniFi. I can see how to do it, kind of, with hotspot on a Mikrotik, but I am not sure I would want a desk clerk dinking with the router. I am assuming that UniFi would be easier to use for this. Problem I have is with the few motels using UniFi they hardly ever keep the software running, and only turn it on when they need remote help from me. We have something similar set up with our ISP billing system for a few campgrounds where they create their own credential then pay a few, but I had to contract a lot of that out due to my inexperience. Maybe I need to look into the Amazon solution. Would be cool to run UniFi on a Mikrotik router. I also assume with them being authenticated we can track bandwidth hogs better. We have quite a few motels that have mostly permanent guests full time, people that never leave the room constantly downloading
[WISPA] Motel WiFi Authentication
Not sure if I should post to UBNT or Mikrotik. Anyways we have a few motels that we run the UniFi APs in and they offer free use of the service. Of course its all you can eat for anyone across the street from the motel, or those who loiter in the parking lots. I havent really stayed in enough motels to see how they do them but what’s a way that users can get a temp username password when they check in? I havent dinked with it much on the UniFi. I can see how to do it, kind of, with hotspot on a Mikrotik, but I am not sure I would want a desk clerk dinking with the router. I am assuming that UniFi would be easier to use for this. Problem I have is with the few motels using UniFi they hardly ever keep the software running, and only turn it on when they need remote help from me. We have something similar set up with our ISP billing system for a few campgrounds where they create their own credential then pay a few, but I had to contract a lot of that out due to my inexperience. Maybe I need to look into the Amazon solution. Would be cool to run UniFi on a Mikrotik router. I also assume with them being authenticated we can track bandwidth hogs better. We have quite a few motels that have mostly permanent guests full time, people that never leave the room constantly downloading movies. On the unifi we could always see who they were by MAC only, but forcing someone to log in may help with the abuse. thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Motel WiFi Authentication
Thanks! From: Bryce Duchcherer Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 2:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Motel WiFi Authentication I did a hotel a few months ago using UniFi and MikroTik. We are running Hotspot service on the MikroTik (RB1100AHx2) and UserManager. For user account creation I put in a HotSpot printer from Technologic. It uses API to create user accounts in UserManager so it is very easy for clerks to be able to create users for guests. You can set limits for days, speed, data transfer, etc. It’s not cheap, and not the easiest to set up but once it is in it works well. Check out www.hotspot-printer.com Another option, depending on the billing system they use, could be to use radius integrated with their billing system to create users. Or, you could just enable user manager and the clerk could create users in the web interface. If you want some more info shoot me an email off list. Bryce D bduc...@netago.ca From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of wi...@mncomm.com Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:24 To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Motel WiFi Authentication Not sure if I should post to UBNT or Mikrotik. Anyways we have a few motels that we run the UniFi APs in and they offer free use of the service. Of course its all you can eat for anyone across the street from the motel, or those who loiter in the parking lots. I havent really stayed in enough motels to see how they do them but what’s a way that users can get a temp username password when they check in? I havent dinked with it much on the UniFi. I can see how to do it, kind of, with hotspot on a Mikrotik, but I am not sure I would want a desk clerk dinking with the router. I am assuming that UniFi would be easier to use for this. Problem I have is with the few motels using UniFi they hardly ever keep the software running, and only turn it on when they need remote help from me. We have something similar set up with our ISP billing system for a few campgrounds where they create their own credential then pay a few, but I had to contract a lot of that out due to my inexperience. Maybe I need to look into the Amazon solution. Would be cool to run UniFi on a Mikrotik router. I also assume with them being authenticated we can track bandwidth hogs better. We have quite a few motels that have mostly permanent guests full time, people that never leave the room constantly downloading movies. On the unifi we could always see who they were by MAC only, but forcing someone to log in may help with the abuse. thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions
I have them at the office, so I can send them when I am back, but I have a better idea. I am getting a quote from a media production company to make a WISP version of these videos, with the ability to throw the logo of a WISP and the url into the video along with a few customized lines of text like, All of us a XYZ WISP are please to explain to you how our bandwidth management plans work - If enough companies signed up, we should be able to make it cheap enough for everyone to have a custom-made video. Daniel Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) o...@odessaoffice.com wrote .. Do you have a link to some of the videos Daniel? Might be helpful for us to send them to our customers or those that call for information. thanks, marlon -Original Message- From: wi...@metrocom.ca Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 8:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions Marlon has the right idea. I have been looking at what ATT is doing to lay the groundwork for pay-as-you-go bandwidth - you can see some of their 'informational' videos on YouTube - and essentially they are setting a really high limit on usage in GB terms, and then billing above that so as to hit the bandwidth hogs. They are phasing it in, and giving people usage meters and alerts to show their usage patterns, but it all leads to having a way for them to tackle the small minority who take an outsize share of the bandwidth, and I have to say they do a good job of making that point clear in those videos. Next year we will also introduce the same sort of tiered fair-use/flat rate plans to enable us to segment the customer base, and most likely do that in the same way as they are. Daniel Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) o...@odessaoffice.com wrote .. Offer a choice to them. $100++ for a speed limited but bit “unlimited” (read that to mean high threshold) plan. Or, $40 for a lower usage plan with smaller steps for higher than average but non disruptive customers. And remember, the high usage customers are costing more than they are paying. You are better off to loose x% of your customer base than to keep them. Pass those folks to your competition and let them die trying to figure out how to support them. And never forget, we are not the only ones having this problem. The big guys are feeling it far worse than we are, we just don’t hear about it as much. And in the next few years the compression mechanisms will get better, AP’s will start to ship with built in cache systems, more data will fit down the same pipe etc. We’ll be able to deliver these services to people sooner than later, just have to stay in business long enough to let the technologies catch up to what the markets are really asking for. marlon From: Joe Miller Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:18 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions Joe, I do agree that usage based billing is the way to go. However, when our system was originally built 10 years ago, it was done so on the “unlimited” platform. The customers that we have I believe will respond in a negative way to the change. So how can we migrate a unlimited system to a UBB system without for a better word, piss off the existing customer base. I have thought about this for quite some time and the billing system I have in place can handle running both at the same time. What would be a good price point per gig of bandwidth? From looking at the current customer usage I think using $1.00 per gig would be a good starting point for discussion. Some customers will see a reduction in monthly cost while most will see an increase in their monthly service. I can see how we can re coup the cost of bandwidth a lot easier. I would like to come up with an email for my customers to ask them what they think in regards to having virtually as much bandwidth as they can use in exchange for billing for that usage. Basically, caped speed with flat rate vs uncapped speed with metered rate. I’m looking at expanding into a new area and using the UBB platform will be a lot easier to start out with, but changing out the current customer base to UBB will be a bigger pill to swallow. I think that this is a good discussion for a session in Vegas. We have hundreds of companies that are members of WISPA, and I think with enough minds on this that we can come up with a good solution for everyone. Regards, Joe Miller www.dslbyair.com www.facebook.com/dslbyair 228-831-8881 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 9:17 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions I believe Fred to be correct. Packages based on speed are not the answer
Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions
Marlon has the right idea. I have been looking at what ATT is doing to lay the groundwork for pay-as-you-go bandwidth - you can see some of their 'informational' videos on YouTube - and essentially they are setting a really high limit on usage in GB terms, and then billing above that so as to hit the bandwidth hogs. They are phasing it in, and giving people usage meters and alerts to show their usage patterns, but it all leads to having a way for them to tackle the small minority who take an outsize share of the bandwidth, and I have to say they do a good job of making that point clear in those videos. Next year we will also introduce the same sort of tiered fair-use/flat rate plans to enable us to segment the customer base, and most likely do that in the same way as they are. Daniel Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) o...@odessaoffice.com wrote .. Offer a choice to them. $100++ for a speed limited but bit “unlimited” (read that to mean high threshold) plan. Or, $40 for a lower usage plan with smaller steps for higher than average but non disruptive customers. And remember, the high usage customers are costing more than they are paying. You are better off to loose x% of your customer base than to keep them. Pass those folks to your competition and let them die trying to figure out how to support them. And never forget, we are not the only ones having this problem. The big guys are feeling it far worse than we are, we just don’t hear about it as much. And in the next few years the compression mechanisms will get better, AP’s will start to ship with built in cache systems, more data will fit down the same pipe etc. We’ll be able to deliver these services to people sooner than later, just have to stay in business long enough to let the technologies catch up to what the markets are really asking for. marlon From: Joe Miller Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:18 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions Joe, I do agree that usage based billing is the way to go. However, when our system was originally built 10 years ago, it was done so on the “unlimited” platform. The customers that we have I believe will respond in a negative way to the change. So how can we migrate a unlimited system to a UBB system without for a better word, piss off the existing customer base. I have thought about this for quite some time and the billing system I have in place can handle running both at the same time. What would be a good price point per gig of bandwidth? From looking at the current customer usage I think using $1.00 per gig would be a good starting point for discussion. Some customers will see a reduction in monthly cost while most will see an increase in their monthly service. I can see how we can re coup the cost of bandwidth a lot easier. I would like to come up with an email for my customers to ask them what they think in regards to having virtually as much bandwidth as they can use in exchange for billing for that usage. Basically, caped speed with flat rate vs uncapped speed with metered rate. I’m looking at expanding into a new area and using the UBB platform will be a lot easier to start out with, but changing out the current customer base to UBB will be a bigger pill to swallow. I think that this is a good discussion for a session in Vegas. We have hundreds of companies that are members of WISPA, and I think with enough minds on this that we can come up with a good solution for everyone. Regards, Joe Miller www.dslbyair.com www.facebook.com/dslbyair 228-831-8881 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 9:17 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions I believe Fred to be correct. Packages based on speed are not the answer. We call our connection a “pipe”, so let’s use a related analogy; You can have two homes with water service. One is an older home that has a ½ inch water main, the other is new construction and has a 1 inch service main. House number 1 has the original fixtures, so the toilet uses 6 gallons per flush, the shower flow is 7 gallons per minute and the clothes washer uses 40-55 gallons per load. House number two, being built under new codes that promote conservation has a low flow toilet that will use 1.6 – 2 gallons per flush, a low flow shower head that restricts flow to 2.5 gallons per minute and a new clothes washer that uses 20 gallons per load. With a family of 5 in each house, it’s easy to see that , despite the smaller service pipe, that house number 1 will have many times the water usage as house number 2. A smaller pipe did nothing to control the flow because the flow limit of the pipe was not reached. Those two pipes are exactly like a 3 meg and 5 meg Internet
[WISPA] Recommendations for Ubiquiti 3.65 site
We are putting up a 3.65 GHz system next week to take existing customers off of an existing Canopy 2.4GHz system. Is there anyone who has deployed the 3 Ghz gear from Ubnt and could recommend which model of CPE and if there anything to know to avoid a steep 'learning curve' since we have never deployed anything from Ubiquiti until now. Suggestions as to the best prices are most welcome too! Thanks, Daniel ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Need small non-penetrating roof mount for single Nanostation + 5ft mast
We try to stick to White Rock hens just to keep things standardized. No one likes to have a back order on a fowl delay things. Ben West b...@gowasabi.net wrote .. If you need, here is a close up of that 3foot tripod screwed down to the treated lumber base: https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-uy-dmEYKRic/TMY7XkHK6RI/AI4/tuJvBzKGcug/w909-h682-no/roof_tripod_base_small.jpg I think those are 1/4 lag screws and washers. The hen is optional. On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Joshua Zukerman haw...@gmail.com wrote: I like what you did here: https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-uSvf_bhcyXE/TMY6GYrz3HI/AIo/5ErZI4Y93D4/w560-h746-no/wasabinet_bolita_small.jpg I sort of had that thought in my mind already, but couldn't envision how to make a bottom piece to hold down the tripod. Now that I see a photo, I may run with this design. I can get the tripods and masts locally, plus a quick trip to the lumber store to pick up pressure treated lumber and a couple of cement blocks. Thanks. On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Ben West b...@gowasabi.net wrote: For ultra low-cost non-penetrating roof mounts, I've been playing around with J-Bars salvaged from discarded Dish TV equipment, mounted to a base made from scrap treated lumber and weighted down with cinderblocks. Then, I mate a vertical length of EMT conduit, 1/2 or better yet 3/4, using a couple conduit hangers. http://goo.gl/ojvZu0 http://goo.gl/6Wu0My Maybe this can give you a general idea, although this would definitely have a conspicuous DIY look. (I just try to make these things in batch, to conserve on labor.) I should note the latter photo, which might be of the most interest to you, is now out of date. The wood beams making up the base were rearranged into a V shape for more width, with a metal brace spanning the mouth of the V for stiffness. Likewise the 24inch vertical mast was replaced with a completely straight section of EMT, instead of that weird zig-zag piece I originally happened to have lying around. On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Joshua Zukerman haw...@gmail.comwrote: Hello list, I am setting up a PtP link between two gas stations for a client. I am going to be using two Nanostation M5 units going about 1/2mi diagonally across a highway. I'd like to mount them to a 5ft mast then to a non-penetrating roof mount, as the only place with clear line-of-sight is on the roof of both gas stations. Flat roof without much of a lip to mount an antenna to. All of my Google searches come up with much larger non-penetrating roof mounts, 3' or wider, which are designed for much larger and taller masts. Also very pricey, $150 or more each. Does anyone make a small non-penetrating roof mount, say 2ft square out of metal with an attachment to hold a 5ft mast or including a 5ft mast? Maybe a single cinder/cement block to weigh it down would be all that is needed. Won't ever need to go higher. Or do you have another suggestion for mounting? Thanks in advance, Josh ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Ben West http://gowasabi.net b...@gowasabi.net 314-246-9434 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Ben West http://gowasabi.net b...@gowasabi.net 314-246-9434 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] Gemini 400 Lite replacements
Just looking for some advice on replacing a dozen or so Gemini 400 Lite units to increase capacity on links. A few links need 100+ capacity now and more later, so tips and recommendations are welcome. Thanks, Daniel ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] Do WISPs need a deal with Google?
Google Now Serves 25 Percent of North American Internet Traffic http://www.linkedin.com/e/-cfpvfc-hjjoh3ku-2w/nab/5765071836882673744/x/true/weekly/eml-ced-b-art-N-5/?hs=falsetok=2saVC-5CB6DlQ1 Everyone knows Google is big. But the truth is that its huge. On an average day, Google accounts for about 25 percent of all consumer internet traffic running through North American ISPs. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Do WISPs need a deal with Google?
Yes, Prince Edward Island, but the address is used only for the holding company. Our issue is any upstream link has to come through either Bell Aliant or the local Cableco, and as an example, a 50 Mbps feed costs over $2k per month. Honestly, I did not think of Hibernia, but I am very grateful to see it. A couple of towers to their node in Truro is do-able, and there was a ~50 mile direct link in place from the other side for a while to feed one site here, but Truro would require at least one repeater to get over the terrain nearby. If anyone has any tips/comments on improving the economics of a location, I would love to hear them, and if anyone has done any Netflix caching outside of a major facility. Thanks. Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote .. I'll admit not knowing much about Canada, including who are incumbents and who are competitive players. However, see if one of these guys could bring you back to a major facility. The Canadian maps aren't all that great, so many some of these guys are nowhere near you. TeliPhone, Telus, Roger's Business, Allstream, Bell Aliant, Hibernia. Hibernia actually has a POP list and the nearest places to you are Moncton and Truro . Sure there's a good distance away, but you could build a licensed network to get there. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Brough Turner broughtur...@gmail.com To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 7:31:32 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Do WISPs need a deal with Google? The domain name registration points to Prince Edward Island, Canada. http://whois.net/whois/metrocom.ca Thanks, Brough Brough Turner netBlazr Inc. – Free your Broadband! Website | Google+ | Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook | Blog | netBlazr Inc. On 7/25/13 7:50 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: I meant the web site for his company, so I could figure out where he's located. Trying to see if any of the Coop work being done would\could benefit him. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Larry A. Weidig lwei...@excel.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 6:52:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Do WISPs need a deal with Google? His link just redirects to: http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/07/google-internet-traffic/ Larry A. Weidig ( lwei...@excel.net ) Excel.Net, Inc. – http://www.excel.net/ (920) 452-0455 – Sheboygan/Plymouth area (888) 489-9995 – Other areas, toll-free - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 6:38:04 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Do WISPs need a deal with Google? I tried to look at your web site, but could only find 403 Forbidden pages. Where are you located? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: wi...@metrocom.ca To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 6:26:22 AM Subject: [WISPA] Do WISPs need a deal with Google? Google Now Serves 25 Percent of North American Internet Traffic http://www.linkedin.com/e/-cfpvfc-hjjoh3ku-2w/nab/5765071836882673744/x/true/weekly/eml-ced-b-art-N-5/?hs=falsetok=2saVC-5CB6DlQ1 Everyone knows Google is big. But the truth is that it’s huge. On an average day, Google accounts for about 25 percent of all consumer internet traffic running through North American ISPs. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Thanks, Brough Brough Turner netBlazr Inc. – Free your Broadband! Mobile: 617-285-0433 Skype: brough netBlazr Inc. | Google+ | Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook | Blog | Personal website ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Demise?
You are likely thinking of Aperto - it just happened to be that the main contact person here for Alvarion moved to them, and I believe recently moved back to Alvarion, so it is possible to have confused the two. If anyone is needs Alvarion-compatible WiMAX CPE get in touch with me off-line: we can supply under reasonable MOQ. Daniel Phil Curnutt pcurn...@gmail.com wrote .. Didn't they partner with Tranzeo. Seems like a bad move on both their parts. Phil On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 6:39 PM, lakeland lakel...@gbcx.net wrote: http://www.cellular-news.com/story/60986.php Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] I'm new, I hope this is the right list...
The dongles used to be that expensive, but we can get them now for $30 to $40 each, but that is the easy part. To get that going, you need a massive infrastructure footprint, own spectrum, large base stations which are tens of thousands of dollars above anything a WISP typically would deploy, and a very tenacious marketing effort. Of course, if you have the spectrum then you are already in the league of millions, not thousands, of dollars already. This is why it is relatively easy to start a WISP, harder to run one, and even harder to remain one. Sam Tetherow tethe...@shwisp.net wrote .. Do you have a particular company in mind? The only companies that I know of that are using dongles (somewhat successfully) are cellular companies. They are using licensed frequencies that cost in hundreds of millions of dollars, assuming you can find any for sale. The last public sale was parts of the 700MHz spectrum in 2009 which was purchased primarily by cellular companies (ATT and Verizon for instance spent billions for their slices of 700MHz). The equipment cost is expensive as well with base stations in the tens of thousands of dollars and I'm sure the dongles are probably in the $100-200/unit range as well. Rich _ wrote: How do the companies that have a dongle do it? Are they using something other than a WISP? On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Sam Tetherow tethe...@shwisp.net mailto:tethe...@shwisp.net wrote: Rich, Given current gear, FCC regulations and available spectrum, outside of reselling cellular you are not going to going to find anything you will be able to reliable allow the customer to self-install. Trust me, there are smarter minds than mine that have been trying to figure that one out since this industry started. As Jay mentioned, Clearwire is probably the closest business model to what you are looking for, and even with their deep pockets and licensed spectrum they are having a tough time making it work. And I think it is precisely because they are choosing to go the route that you are looking for. If they took their spectrum and equipment and used it as traditional, professionally installed fixed wireless setup they would probably have a working business model. Sure their return on investment would be higher due to the installer cost, but if they took a dish-network model to getting installs done they would only be looking at 3-6 months break even on the install cost and considering the amount of money that has already been poured into the business I would think that would be a drop in the bucket. Rich _ wrote: Thx Faisal, I'm located in PA in the USA. But, I'm not interested in starting a WISP based on where I'm located. I'm interested in finding a location that best enables success for the business. Yes, I would be looked at as the business/funding person. A technical partner or technical contractor/employee would be needed. I hope available equipment is quite stable and reliable? On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net mailto:fai...@snappydsl.net mailto:fai...@snappydsl.net mailto:fai...@snappydsl.net wrote: Hi Rich, WISPA General List is actually a Global List. It would go a long ways for relevant folks to reply back to you if you at least share what part of the world ? / State or City if in the US. My personal reaction after reading the first two paragraphs was to suggest that you should consider some other business other than being a WISP. However after reading the last two paragraphs, it sounds like you may be the Business / Funding guy, looking for a Technical Partner to build a business together. The only reason I am saying this is because this is a tough business to be in if you are not going to roll up your sleeves and get your hands dirty. Regards and Good Luck. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, Fl 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 tel:305%20663%205518%20x%20232 tel:305%20663%205518%20x%20232 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 tel:305%20663%205518 tel:305%20663%205518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net mailto:supp...@snappydsl.net mailto:supp...@snappydsl.net On 11/28/2011 6:33 PM, Rich _ wrote: Hello, I operate in the custom software development industry and am considering setting up a WISP as a new
Re: [WISPA] I'm new, I hope this is the right list...
ATT wants to buy T-Mobile - mainly for its spectrum. That is a $33+ billion dollar deal. If you look at the spectrum the cellular companies have and are hoarding, you will conclude it is very hard to find spectrum worth having which is not already licensed, which is why WISPA is working hard on things like 3.65 GHz and whitespaces. These are efforts which are worth supporting. Things are different in Canada, at least for now! Daniel Rich _ rich.ema...@gmail.com wrote .. The answer to my last question was obvious from the posts so far. I should have asked if there are licensed frequencies that I can still purchase and if so how much do the range in cost? On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Matt Jenkins m...@smarterbroadband.netwrote: ** Proprietary equipment in most cases. They also use licensed frequency which they pay a premium for. On 11/28/2011 04:51 PM, Rich _ wrote: What type of equipment does Clear/OpenRange use that allows a connection using one of those 1x3 USB things? On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: None that I know of. Those are the companies like Clear and OpenRange. That model doesn't seem to financially or operationally/technically work. Most if not all the Wisps here install equipment on vertical space (grain leg, building, tower) and install a CPE on the customer roof. From the CPE side, a lot like satellite. Low profile but it is there. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 28, 2011 7:40 PM, Rich _ rich.ema...@gmail.com wrote: How do the companies that have a dongle do it? Are they using something other than a WISP? On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Sam Tetherow tethe...@shwisp.netwrote: Rich, Given current gear, FCC regulations and available spectrum, outside of reselling cellular you are not going to going to find anything you will be able to reliable allow the customer to self-install. Trust me, there are smarter minds than mine that have been trying to figure that one out since this industry started. As Jay mentioned, Clearwire is probably the closest business model to what you are looking for, and even with their deep pockets and licensed spectrum they are having a tough time making it work. And I think it is precisely because they are choosing to go the route that you are looking for. If they took their spectrum and equipment and used it as traditional, professionally installed fixed wireless setup they would probably have a working business model. Sure their return on investment would be higher due to the installer cost, but if they took a dish-network model to getting installs done they would only be looking at 3-6 months break even on the install cost and considering the amount of money that has already been poured into the business I would think that would be a drop in the bucket. Rich _ wrote: Thx Faisal, I'm located in PA in the USA. But, I'm not interested in starting a WISP based on where I'm located. I'm interested in finding a location that best enables success for the business. Yes, I would be looked at as the business/funding person. A technical partner or technical contractor/employee would be needed. I hope available equipment is quite stable and reliable? On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net mailto:fai...@snappydsl.net wrote: Hi Rich, WISPA General List is actually a Global List. It would go a long ways for relevant folks to reply back to you if you at least share what part of the world ? / State or City if in the US. My personal reaction after reading the first two paragraphs was to suggest that you should consider some other business other than being a WISP. However after reading the last two paragraphs, it sounds like you may be the Business / Funding guy, looking for a Technical Partner to build a business together. The only reason I am saying this is because this is a tough business to be in if you are not going to roll up your sleeves and get your hands dirty. Regards and Good Luck. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, Fl 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 tel:305%20663%205518%20x%20232 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 tel:305%20663%205518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net mailto:supp...@snappydsl.net On 11/28/2011 6:33 PM, Rich _ wrote: Hello, I operate in the custom software development industry and am considering setting up a WISP as a new business investment. I know very little about the industry and am hoping that some of you will not mind giving me some feedback. In exchange, I'll be glad
Re: [WISPA] I'm new, I hope this is the right list...
It could be you will not find what you want, Rich. Having easy frequencies - your 'own' spectrum, cheap gear from Huawei, and simply mailing the CPE 'dongle' to the customers still runs up against physics: you need to have to pump plenty of power into the air to cover a big area, and even if you do, the dongle will not get the range you want. I did a deployment earlier this year where the coverage map ended exactly at the property line of my customer, and we were lucky enough that it worked, but there is no way I would have sent out a box and said to the customer that it would really work fine. To have ubiquitous coverage means many more cell sites and much more money for the infrastructure. The WISP, who knows the local area, does the fixed, on-wall outdoor install and can go the distance where the dongle will not, and if there is a coverage gap to be filled, it might be a '$100 problem' or a '$1000 problem' but not a $100,000 problem. It seems your ideal location would be a metropolitan environment where the customers would most likely anyway be better served by wireline or fiber options. Daniel Rich _ rich.ema...@gmail.com wrote .. Then, most WISP operations use unlicensed freqencies? On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Matt Jenkins m...@smarterbroadband.netwrote: ** Proprietary equipment in most cases. They also use licensed frequency which they pay a premium for. On 11/28/2011 04:51 PM, Rich _ wrote: What type of equipment does Clear/OpenRange use that allows a connection using one of those 1x3 USB things? On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: None that I know of. Those are the companies like Clear and OpenRange. That model doesn't seem to financially or operationally/technically work. Most if not all the Wisps here install equipment on vertical space (grain leg, building, tower) and install a CPE on the customer roof. From the CPE side, a lot like satellite. Low profile but it is there. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 28, 2011 7:40 PM, Rich _ rich.ema...@gmail.com wrote: How do the companies that have a dongle do it? Are they using something other than a WISP? On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Sam Tetherow tethe...@shwisp.netwrote: Rich, Given current gear, FCC regulations and available spectrum, outside of reselling cellular you are not going to going to find anything you will be able to reliable allow the customer to self-install. Trust me, there are smarter minds than mine that have been trying to figure that one out since this industry started. As Jay mentioned, Clearwire is probably the closest business model to what you are looking for, and even with their deep pockets and licensed spectrum they are having a tough time making it work. And I think it is precisely because they are choosing to go the route that you are looking for. If they took their spectrum and equipment and used it as traditional, professionally installed fixed wireless setup they would probably have a working business model. Sure their return on investment would be higher due to the installer cost, but if they took a dish-network model to getting installs done they would only be looking at 3-6 months break even on the install cost and considering the amount of money that has already been poured into the business I would think that would be a drop in the bucket. Rich _ wrote: Thx Faisal, I'm located in PA in the USA. But, I'm not interested in starting a WISP based on where I'm located. I'm interested in finding a location that best enables success for the business. Yes, I would be looked at as the business/funding person. A technical partner or technical contractor/employee would be needed. I hope available equipment is quite stable and reliable? On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net mailto:fai...@snappydsl.net wrote: Hi Rich, WISPA General List is actually a Global List. It would go a long ways for relevant folks to reply back to you if you at least share what part of the world ? / State or City if in the US. My personal reaction after reading the first two paragraphs was to suggest that you should consider some other business other than being a WISP. However after reading the last two paragraphs, it sounds like you may be the Business / Funding guy, looking for a Technical Partner to build a business together. The only reason I am saying this is because this is a tough business to be in if you are not going to roll up your sleeves and get your hands dirty. Regards and Good Luck. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, Fl
Re: [WISPA] I'm new, I hope this is the right list...
Well said! So would you care to put a price tag on what you cost out an indoor customer-installed link versus an outdoor company-installed link and the related share of RAN to the edge of the network? Blake Covarrubias bl...@beamspeed.com wrote .. On Nov 28, 2011, at 6:02 PM, Sam Tetherow wrote: As Jay mentioned, Clearwire is probably the closest business model to what you are looking for, and even with their deep pockets and licensed spectrum they are having a tough time making it work…If they took their spectrum and equipment and used it as traditional, professionally installed fixed wireless setup they would probably have a working business model. Agreed. Quoting Tom DeReggi: The secret to a successful WISP is getting the highest modulations possible so they get the most capacity. IMO, this is absolutely what makes any wireless service work well. My company offers residential wireless services on 2.5GHz spectrum. We have about 4,000 residential customers. Most are indoor NLOS, but we also have a fair number of outdoor fixed LOS customers. The indoor CPE are usually at lower modulations, and are more of a drain on the BTS RF resources than an outdoor, higher modulation CPE. This is because the schedulers in our equipment utilize throughput fairness instead of temporal fairness. It takes more RF resources to service low mod customers so the available capacity fills up quicker leading to congestion, and slow service. In our experience the aggregate throughput of a BTS with a high number of lower modulation CPE is at least half (if not more) than one with a majority of high modulation CPE. We can easily service 150-200 high modulation CPE on a single BTS compared to 40-50 low modulation CPE on the same BTS before it becomes congested. Clearwire likely has a lot of low modulation CPE out there, and has tried to make up for it by adding more base stations…at considerable cost. -- Blake Covarrubias WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Looking for Linux Consultant
I would second that; we are running Virtualmin with Ubuntu on a couple of servers for a while now and it really fantastic. The support - free! - is also great. If you are looking a bit ahead, they also have a good package called Cloudmin which is worth considering. Daniel Justin Wilson li...@mtin.net wrote .. If you are using Centos I would look into Virtualmin and webmin. The main reason I say this is Virtualmin allows you to migrate to new servers very easily. Takes some setting up, but I have been doing it since CentOS 3 and have no issues. Migrated to new hardware and OS probably 7 times now. -- Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net Aol Yahoo IM: j2sw http://www.mtin.net/blog xISP News http://www.twitter.com/j2sw Follow me on Twitter From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 01:46:21 + To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for Linux Consultant Will try, thanks Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 787.273.4143 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Reed Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 9:26 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for Linux Consultant DNS server Load the new boxes with the new OS. Make sure DNS is working. Copy the data directory and /etc/named.conf Restart named Web Load the new box with the new OS Make sure Apache works. Move the web directories to the new box with /etc/httpd/httpd.conf Restart httpd On 10/17/2011 8:47 PM, Gino Villarini wrote: Need to move 2 Centos 4.3 DNS Server records to 2 new Centos 6 Servers, Also move a Centos 4.3 web hosting server to Centos 6 Server Offlist for more info Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 787.273.4143 -- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1831 / Virus Database: 2090/4557 - Release Date: 10/17/11 -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net http://www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 (855) 231-6239 -- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Any Mikrotik experts hanging out tonight?
If there is no function in V4 that you require, we would suggest downgrading to V3.30 for routers. V4 is only suggested if you have wireless cards in the router needing 802.11n support. Many customers have found issues in higher versions of the OS, some are still running V2.9, it just depends on what functions you need on that router. Give it a try... Regards, Titan Wireless WISPA Vendor 3914 Gattis School Rd Suite 102 Round Rock, TX 78664 Office (512) 942-6069 Fax (877) 538-6571 www.titanwirelessonline.com The content of this message is Titan Wireless LLC Confidential. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, any use or distribution is prohibited. Please notify me immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message from your computer system. Thank you. Grant Stufft wrote: Hi, Any MT gurus hanging out tonight. We have a powerouter 732 that we upgraded from v3.22 to 4.17 tonight. When we upgraded it complained about a new license and we did the automatic upgrade and it rebooted just fine. The problem is that I cannot reach it now via the public ip addresses. Was working great before the upgrade. I can access it just fine over the two routed internal interfaces but not the masq interfaces. We have three different sources of bandwidth on 3 of the ethernet interfaces and two of the ethernet interfaces have our rfc1918 addresses with clients on them. There are masq statements for each of the 3 bandwidth interfaces for 192.168.0.0/16 http://192.168.0.0/16 to only go out that particular interface. We then use policy routing to send the traffic out the different interfaces. It was working fine until the upgrade. Now torch shows that there is no traffic going over the interfaces. If you go to the nat statements and look at the masq statements, the counters are increasing like they are being hit but the traffic is not leaving the interface. Any idea what may be happening or more importantly what information is needed to properly get this working again and fixed? Worked very well before and to my eyes, everything looks good. Thanks WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Rackmount Mikrotik
Jeremy, FYI - We don't manufacture any of the devices your commenting on. You should redirect your comments to the actual vendors that do if your unhappy with there designs. Perhaps you should actually purchase one before you comment on there uselessness... Regards, Titan Wireless WISPA Vendor 3914 Gattis School Rd Suite 102 Round Rock, TX 78664 Office (512) 942-6069 Fax (877) 538-6571 www.titanwirelessonline.com The content of this message is Titan Wireless LLC Confidential. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, any use or distribution is prohibited. Please notify me immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message from your computer system. Thank you. Jeremy Parr wrote: I'm in the market for a rackmount MT device. Don't care how many ports (as long as it is two or more), just need something that can rack mount. Internal power supply preferred, as well as front to back or side to side cooling. What are these vendors thinking building rackmount devices with top to bottom cooling? I'm looking at you RB1000U/RB1100U/Titan Wireless Rackmount Case. They are about as useful as an armored tank with a rag top. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] RouterBoard 532(a)
We have 2x 532's and 2x 532A's here. They are repaired MikroTIk RMA's so like almost new :) Give us a call in the office if you want them. Ask for Mike. Regards, Titan Wireless WISPA Vendor 3914 Gattis School Rd Suite 102 Round Rock, TX 78664 Office (512) 942-6069 Fax (877) 538-6571 www.titanwirelessonline.com The content of this message is Titan Wireless LLC Confidential. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, any use or distribution is prohibited. Please notify me immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message from your computer system. Thank you. Blair Davis wrote: I am looking for a few (2-5) RouterBoard 532 or 532A. New or used at a reasonable price... Off list is likely better than on... Thanks, Blair WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MUM USA
We are getting in this afternoon Regards, Titan Wireless WISPA Vendor 3914 Gattis School Rd Suite 102 Round Rock, TX 78664 Office (512) 942-6069 Fax (877) 538-6571 www.titanwirelessonline.com The content of this message is Titan Wireless LLC Confidential. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, any use or distribution is prohibited. Please notify me immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message from your computer system. Thank you. Cliff Olle wrote: I'll be there at 4:30. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 29, 2010, at 7:24 AM, Steve Barnes st...@pcswin.com wrote: Leaving in a couple of hours for MUM in Phoenix. Who else will be there? Where are we getting together at Thursday or Friday night? Steve Barnes RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] FW: Form 477 Due
BEGIN:VCALENDAR PRODID:-//Microsoft Corporation//Outlook 12.0 MIMEDIR//EN VERSION:2.0 METHOD:REQUEST X-MS-OLK-FORCEINSPECTOROPEN:TRUE BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Eastern Standard Time BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:16011104T02 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=1SU;BYMONTH=11 TZOFFSETFROM:-0400 TZOFFSETTO:-0500 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:16010311T02 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=2SU;BYMONTH=3 TZOFFSETFROM:-0500 TZOFFSETTO:-0400 END:DAYLIGHT END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT ATTACH:CID:0c7001cb382f$0a2c87e0$ ATTENDEE;cn=memb...@wispa.org;RSVP=TRUE:mailto:memb...@wispa.org ATTENDEE;CN=WISPA General List;RSVP=TRUE:mailto:wireless@wispa.org ATTENDEE;cn=motor...@afmug.com;RSVP=TRUE:mailto:motor...@afmug.com CLASS:PUBLIC CREATED:20100810T014909Z DESCRIPTION:When: Wednesday\, September 01\, 2010 12:00 AM to Thursday\, Se ptember 02\, 2010 12:00 AM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US Canada).\nWhere: FCC\n\nNote: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time a djustments.\n\n*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*\n\nForm 477 Due Sept 1\, 2010\n\nmore d etails » https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEWeid=MDcyaGVmd m44Zmw3aTg2czBtb3BhMHZzbDBfMjAxMDA5MDEgcmhhcm5pc2hAd2lzcGEub3Jntok=MTUjYm 9hcmRAd2lzcGEub3JnZTc1OWMzMDRmNGU5OWMzYjIzYjc5Y2ZkYzdmMDE0ZjQzMzA4ZmVkMAc tz=America%2FNew_Yorkhl=en \n\nInstructions:\nhttps://specialreports.fcc .gov/wcb/Form477/ http://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fspecialreport s.fcc.gov%2Fwcb%2FForm477%2Fusd=2usg=AFQjCNF9MsrcL14FiGao9M_Dy7WR4Rtxfw \n\nFCC Form 477 collects information about broadband connections to end user locations\, wired and\nwireless local telephone services\, and interc onnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services\, in\nindividual sta tes. The term “state” includes the District of Columbia and the “Ter ritories and\npossessions” (see 47 U.S.C. § 153(40)). Data obtained fro m this form will be used to describe the\ndeployment of broadband infrastr ucture and competition to provide local telecommunications services\n\n\nW hen\nWed Sep 1\, 2010 \nWhere\nFCC \ncalendar\nrharn...@wispa.org \nWho Mu st File This Form?\nA. Facilities-based Providers of Broadband Connections to End User Locations\nB. Providers of Wired or Fixed Wireless Local Exch ange Telephone Service\nC. Providers of Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Service\nD. Providers of Mobile Telephony Services\n\nInv itation from Google Calendar https://www.google.com/calendar/ \n\nYou ar e receiving this courtesy email at the account rharn...@wispa.org because you are an attendee of this event.\n\nTo stop receiving future notificatio ns for this event\, decline this event. Alternatively you can sign up for a Google account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your noti fication settings for your entire calendar.\n \n DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20100902 DTSTAMP:20100810T014816Z DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20100901 LAST-MODIFIED:20100810T015458Z LOCATION:FCC ORGANIZER;CN=Board WISPA:mailto:bo...@wispa.org PRIORITY:5 RECURRENCE-ID;TZID=Eastern Standard Time:20100831T20 SEQUENCE:1 SUMMARY;LANGUAGE=en-us:FW: Form 477 Due TRANSP:OPAQUE UID:072hefvn8fl7i86s0mopa0v...@google.com X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//E N\nHTML\nHEAD\nMETA NAME=Generator CONTENT=MS Exchange Server ve rsion 08.00.0681.000\nTITLE/TITLE\n/HEAD\nBODY\n!-- Converted f rom text/rtf format --\n\nP DIR=LTRSPAN LANG=en-usFONT FACE=Calib riWhen: Wednesday\, September 01\, 2010 12:00 AM to Thursday\, September 02\, 2010 12:00 AM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US amp\; Canada)./FONT/S PAN/P\n\nP DIR=LTRSPAN LANG=en-usFONT FACE=CalibriWhere: FCC /FONT/SPAN/P\n\nP DIR=LTRSPAN LANG=en-usFONT FACE=CalibriNo te: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments ./FONT/SPAN/P\n\nP DIR=LTRSPAN LANG=en-usFONT FACE=Calibri *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*/FONT/SPAN/P\n\nP DIR=LTRSPAN LANG=en-usB /B/SPANSPAN LANG=en-usB/B/SPANSPAN LANG=en-usBFONT SI ZE=4 FACE=ArialForm 477 Due/FONT/B/SPANSPAN LANG=en-usBI /I/B/SPANSPAN LANG=en-usBI/I/B/SPANSPAN LANG=en-us BIFONT COLOR=#1F497D SIZE=4 FACE=Arial/FONT/I/B/SPANSPAN LANG=en-usB/B/SPANSPAN LANG=en-usB/B/SPANSPAN LANG=e n-usB FONT SIZE=4 FACE=ArialSept 1\, 2010/FONT/B/SPAN/P\n\ nP DIR=LTRSPAN LANG=en-us/SPAN/P\n\nP DIR=LTRSPAN LANG=en-us /SPANA HREF=https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEWamp\;e id=MDcyaGVmdm44Zmw3aTg2czBtb3BhMHZzbDBfMjAxMDA5MDEgcmhhcm5pc2hAd2lzcGEub3J namp\;tok=MTUjYm9hcmRAd2lzcGEub3JnZTc1OWMzMDRmNGU5OWMzYjIzYjc5Y2ZkYzdmMDE 0ZjQzMzA4ZmVkMAamp\;ctz=America%2FNew_Yorkamp\;hl=enSPAN LANG=en-us /SPANSPAN LANG=en-us/SPANSPAN LANG=en-usUFONT COLOR=# FF FACE=Arialmore details »/FONT/U/SPANSPAN LANG=en-us/SPA N/ASPAN LANG=en-us/SPANSPAN LANG=en-us/SPANSPAN LANG=en-u sBR\n/SPANSPAN LANG=en-us/SPANSPAN LANG=en-us/SPANSPAN LANG=en-usBR\nFONT COLOR=#1F497D FACE=ArialInstructions:/FONT /SPANSPAN LANG=en-us/SPANSPAN LANG=en-us/SPANSPAN LANG=en- us/SPAN/P\n\nP DIR=LTRSPAN LANG=en-us/SPANA HREF=http://ww
[WISPA] WISPA invites you to WISPA Summer 2010 Regional Meeting (Jul 21, 2010 - Jul 22, 2010)
--
Event Summary:
--
Event: WISPA Summer 2010 Regional Meeting
Date: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 8:00 AM span class=pipe-/span Thursday,
July 22, 2010 at 8:00 PM (CT)
Location: bHoliday Inn St. Louis Airport/bbr /4505 Woodson Roadbr /St.
Louis, MISSOURI 63134br /br /
--
Event Details:
--
plt;script type=text/javascriptgt;/p
p var _gaq = _gaq || [];/p
p _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-9743884-2']);/p
p _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);/p
p (function() {/p
p var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript';
ga.async = true;/p
p ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' :
'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';/p
p var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0];
s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);/p
p })();/p
plt;/scriptgt;/p
pa title=Holiday Inn Reservations
href=http://www.holidayinn.com/hotels/us/en/stlop/hoteldetail;
target=_blank/a /p
p style=text-align: center; img title=Book Hotel Now!
src=http://eventbrite-s3.s3.amazonaws.com/eventlogos/4602139/brands.content000180image.contentimage.1.2.gif;
alt=Holiday Inn Logo width=138 height=99 //p
p style=text-align: center; a
href=http://ichotelsgroup.com/redirect?path=ratesamp;brandCode=HIamp;GPC=WISamp;hotelCode=STLOPamp;_PMID=99801505;
target=_blankBook Hotel Now using WIS for Room Code/a/p
p style=text-align: center; font color=#FFA200Call In Reservations
314-427-4700/font/p
pPer Member requests, WISPA is proud to hold it's first WISPA Regional
Meeting in St. Louis, Mo on July 21st and 22nd. We are currently planning
three tracks, packed with information on regulatory issues, operations,
marketing and other challenges the WISP industry faces on a day to day
basis./p
pWe invite all WISPs to attend this meeting. Come meet the current WISPA
Board and hopefully many of the new Board members who will be running for next
years Board. There will be a breakfast Board Meeting on the second day, so you
will be able to see the Board in action and participate in the discussion. /p
pWe expect a good participation of vendors with Booth Space and Sponsorship
opportunities. The vendors will also have a chance to speak during the agenda
on different products and services they have to offer. /p
pWe are currently securing Keynote speakers and this page will be amended as
speakers are secured. Our Industry is dynamic and in a current state of flux.
WISPA is involved heavily in the TV Whitespaces, 3.65 GHz rule making, TDWR
Database work, National Broadband Plan and Stimulus Funding. Schedule your
participation for this meeting today, so you can stay up to date with current
WISPA efforts. We will insure that this will be a great event and well worth
your time and money to attend./p
pfont size=3Platinum Sponsors/font/p
pa href=http://www.bluemesh.net; target=_blankimg
src=http://www.wispa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/bluemesh140x90.jpg;
alt=BlueMesh width=140 height=90 //aa
href=http://www.dishnetwork.com/; target=_blankimg
src=http:///www.wispa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Dish140x90.jpg; alt=Dish
Network //a/p
pfont size=3Gold Sponsors/font/p
pa href=http://www.surpluswirelessgear.com/; target=_blankimg
src=http://www.wispa.org/images/partners/swg140x90.jpg; alt=Surplus Wireless
Gear width=140 height=90 //aa href=http://www.netsapiens.com/;
target=_blankimg
src=http://eventbrite-s3.s3.amazonaws.com/eventlogos/4602139/netsapiens.png;
alt=Netsapiens width=140 height=90 //aa href=http://www.winncom.com;
target=_blankimg
src=http://www.wispa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/winncom_logo_140x90.jpg;
alt=Winncom width=140 height=90 //afont color=#EE6600a
href=http://www.motorola.com/Business/US-EN/Business+Product+and+Services/Wireless+Broadband+Networks/;
target=_blankimg src=http://www.wispa.org/images/partners/21.png;
alt=Motorola width=140 height=90 //a/font/p
pfont color=#EE6600a href=http://www.exaltcom.com;img
src=http://www.wispa.org/images/partners/Exalt140x90.jpg; alt=Exalt
Communications width=140 height=90 //a/font/p
pfont size=3Silver Sponsors/font/p
pa title=Moonblink Communications href=http://www.moonblinkwifi.com/;
target=_blankimg style=vertical-align: top;
src=http://www.wispa.org/images/partners/moonblink140x90.jpg; alt=Moonblink
Communications //aa href=http://www.ipifony.com; target=_blankimg
src=http://eventbrite-s3.s3.amazonaws.com/eventlogos/4602139/ipifony140x90.jpg;
alt= width=140 height=90 //a/p
pProposed Schedule/p
p class=MsoNormalstrongspan style=text-decoration: underline;Day
1/span/strong/p
p class=MsoNormalstrongspan style=text-decoration: underline;
table class=MsoNormalTable border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0
tbody
tr
td width=148 valign=top
p class=MsoNormalstrongfont color=#FF99009:00 –
9:15/font/strong/p
/td
td colspan=3 width=724 valign=top
p class=MsoNormalstrongfont color=#FF9900Welcome from
Re: [WISPA] User check program
Good points Tom, particularly about the speed test. I also like the hints button for common trouble shooting suggestions. Tough to write the text, and harder to get the user to read it, but might reduce a few trouble calls. Speaking from our perspective, we are looking for a small and simple diagnostic tool to help residential and small business users self diagnose the common problems, and to make it much easier for the level 1 help desk to work over the phone. Local Wi-Fi and other local gear are half the calls. Some per-user customization feature in addition the global settings common to all customers would be REALLY great. But what is really not all that important is the speed test. I'm not saying a speed test is not a valid testing tool in the right situation but we rarely see problems with a link that can't be seen with a ping test. Of course some customers *love* doing speed tests! That is another reason such tests cause more problems than they solve. As you pointed out, designing an accurate speed test is not trivial. I'm happy to see Larry has moved the speed test to a separate tab with a separate start button but I would really like to see an option to disable and hide the entire speed test tab with a setting in the .ini file. As someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, this testing tool might cause *more* trouble calls, not less, if it doesn't work correctly, or can't be tailored correctly for the particulars of a given network. Maybe Larry can make a second stand alone program for speed testing later, or the WISP can just host one of several that already exist and let the user run it from a browser. I would rather see Larry focus his limited time on a slick way to push customized settings out to each user. About this email address field where test results are sent. Why is this even needed? Results should be sent directly to a dedicated central address. Whoever is on duty handling tech calls can get the results as needed. This address can be set in the .ini file. There is no need for the user to send the results to his buddy or wherever. The program is branded and configured for the specific WISP and that network. No reason to have another setting for the user to mess up. Besides, emailing the results is fine for now but email is far from trouble free. Rarely do network problems prevent email from working but users break their own email clients all the time. Eventually it would be best if the results are written to a web server, or sent by ftp or maybe someday sent over a unique port directly to a specialized companion program Larry writes for a server at the NOC (rel 2 Larry ;). Thanks for your work on this Larry. It is looking very nice. We are excited to see it finished. PC Blaze Broadband -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 8:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] User check program Two comments... When we diagnose a client, we are trying to discover six things... 1) Is the PC's Pri NIC active and configured for TCP IP 2) Can they reach their home router 3) Can they reach the first hop cell site/tower 4) Can they reach the far side Backbone edge of network. 5) Can they reach Internet. 6) Is DNS resolving. So I suggest adding to the test, test to self. Pinging its own PC IP, to confirm NIC Cable plugged in, or interface turned up. (Could be helpful even if two interfaces on PC, ether and wireless) #3 is more tricky, because each client might have a different tower IP. So this would have to be a custom set IP. It would be left untested, if the ini file had not been configured with a valid test IP. I could see the installion tech adding in this IP at time of install. But this is an essential test. It tells the End user, whether it likely that their outage is unique to their home. If they can get to the tower, but not further, they know there is likely a network wide outage. It also tells the end user to reboot the outdoor equipment. Secondly, I ask us to challenge why we want this tool most. a) To test performance, or b) To locate failure points. These are two very different purposes. I'd suggest that this tool is most useful for option b. I would have the start test button for Speed test be a sdifferent start button than the one that performs all the other uptime tests. So a Speed test isn;t done everytime the end user jsut wants to verify why they can't get to the Internet. I'd like to have a Disclaimer field right under the Speed Test line, that was customizable by the ISP in the INI. For example, I'd say... Speed test is just a basic test, to get a detailed speed test, goto site at www..net. (I'm not saying you can;t make a good speed test, but speed testing can be very complicated. I'd hate to see this valuable tool get delayed, attempting to optimize
Re: [WISPA] User check program
Very nice Larry. Let us all know what we can do to help. PC Blaze Broadband -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Yunker Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 4:08 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] User check program Travis has been good enough to be the Alpha tester of the User check program over the past few days. BTW, I have generically named it Internet Monitor. I'm attaching two updated screenshots. I've added a few features since my last post. These features include: (1) ISP customization via a configuration file for the IP addresses for each of the test target locations. (2) ISP customization Threshold settings (3) ISP customization of Logo and contact information (4) Upload speed testing** Note you will need to add a php or asp file to your webserver to support upload testing. (5) I rearranged the order of the tests to more closely reflect nearest hop to furthest hop (6) The system now detects the user's local IP address, netmask, gateway, and DNS settings. (7) Timeouts and ping responses of less than 1ms are now properly reported. I've run into a few issues and I thought I'd see if anyone has a suggestions regarding these issues: (1) For purposes of Deployment, this program requires .Net 2.0. The install program will check for the existence of .Net 2.0 on the target machine and will attempt to install it if it is not already installed. Unfortunately, .Net 2.0 won't install on any machine older than Windows98 and won't install on WinXP machines until Service Pack 2.0 or newer is installed. So, the .Net requirement is somewhat of a pain. The Installation program will work easily on machines that already have .Net or on machines that don't have .Net but have all of the prerequisites for installing .Net. Hopefully that will be the majority of installs?!?@ But, in an ideal world, we'd like to avoid installing .Net, so the question is this: does anyone know how to compile and deploy a Visual Basic application without requiring .Net to be installed on the target machine? Or if that's not possible, does anyone have any suggestions as to other visual languages which DO NOT USE .NET and which might be used for future ports of this application. (2) One of the features of this application is a speed test. As you might imagine, sometimes speed tests will fail to complete (due to congestion, poor connection, etc.). For this reason, it becomes imperative that I create some sort of timeout mechanism so that the attempted upload or download halts with no results if the test is taking too long. I'm using the webclient.uploadfile and webclient.downloadfile methods to accomplish these tests. Does anyone know whether there is a way to force this method to halt upon a preset timeout? If not, does anyone have a good example of code to place a process in background in Visual Basic? Thanks, Larry WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] LEMMINGS?
? NO + http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/woissues/techinttele/calea/caleajan07.pdf 4. It is Patriotic... o Way wrong, observe the historical definition of patriotism. The label of patriot has historically been applied to groups rebelling. + # Patriots (Founding Fathers of USA, rebelled against England) # Patriots (Dutch group that rebelled against the Orangists in the United Provinces in the 18th century.) # Les Patriotes, those who supported independence for what is now Québec, Canada, during the Lower Canada Rebellion. o I think it would more define Patriotic if we had made efforts in the following areas: + Contacting our subscribers to notify them, and attempt to collect and coordinate their feelings about this. + Operating as a group to notify the FCC that they should review the form 447 filings that have been made, so they could calculate the impact of WISPs forming an alliance to shut down their networks in cyclic outages (disconnect the 'internet' leave your intranetwork traffic flowing, as a peaceful protest of the draconian measures be forced upon us as an industry group. o Dictionary definition: A patriot is someone who feels patriotism, support for their country. 2. COST? 1. Won't waste a minute of your time on the dollars. We all know that for ourselves. If not, contact Neustar for a quote. 2. I am referring to the following. If the real true GOAL of WISPs being mired in CALEA is because two people connected to the same AP MIGHT pass packets that aren't captured by current means, then can some one please tell me... How we can expect an embedded, low power, 'edge' of network device like an AP to have enough CPU to provide our subscribers the service they are accustomed to while mirroring/capturing traffic? 2. Frequency 1. Face it, Spectrum Auctions are completely redonk. 1. With out more 'public outcry' type pressure being applied for the FCC to widen 'for public use', unlicensed spectrum, then the large, fat cat, corporate behemoths will keep our WISP efforts comfortably confined to only very small portion of market, and 'we the people' are worse off because of it. 2. I sincerely hope that I live to see the day when the devices are allowed to be truly freq. portable / agnostic. To see a time when my devices may communicate with each other with custom wave forms simultaneously even if walking in the same frequency. 3. I love what WISPs /CLECs have done, I love what WISPs are about, we are truly participants in our communities whom care. I hope we as WISPs are not about to transform into lemmings and run the herd off a cliff. /RANT Some may know me, but I do appreciate your candor in not revealing it. ;) lol Peace and freedom to all, XXX -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] what does this?
Within a few minutes of each other, I got calls from opposite ends of my network complaining about outages. Really odd, I thought, as I was in the middle of checking out some things. The short of it is as follows: Sometime yesterday, not exactly sure what time, two backbone links suddenly began going up and down, 5 sec up, 5 sec down. One is 10 miles long, runs due east west from the east end of town into the mountains. The other is 10 miles south and somewhat west of the other one, and runs north-south, with the north end somewhat west of the south end. The only common factor? Both were on 5805.About 2 months ago, both were down suddenly, and I had to move both from 5745 to 5805, all frequencies in between were so hot I could not establish a link with a rssi of -72. Again, the links end are 10 miles apart at their closest ends and run about 170 degrees angle from each other. Today, 5745 is clear and clean with no apparent issues as I have an AP on it carrying 20 customers over looking the only common area between the two links, 5805 is buried, over a span of 30 miles. The pattern was obvious... about 5 seconds of no data moving, 5 seconds fine, steady pattern going on and on and on. About 50% ping loss, with the 1-ping-per-second showing 5 good, 5 missed, 5 good, 5 missed. What could possibly be that strong that it can take down such widely spread apart links? In both cases, there is considerable elevation change, such that low ends see nothing but dirt and sky (there's NOTHING but mountains and clear sky beyond my higher elevation sites in both cases) beyond their respective other ends, and that the far ends have considerable downtilt and their respective beam patterns do not intersect, but instead, point into dirt. Something has to be so strong that it takes down the links from OUTSIDE of the beam patterns of 26 db (or higher) grids. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA FAQ-rant
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 14:07:01 +, Ron Wallace wrote To All, Thanks to all that participated. I know you worked hard and used valuable time which could have been spent on your business. However, Am I the only person in WISPA who disapproves of this 'STUFF'. This is the way Saudi Arabia is run, and that's a total police state. I know, I spent three years there. Are we just supposed to just swallow whatever the Bureaucrats 'shovel' our way? Man, this scares the bejesus out of me. ARGGG! Ron Wallace Hahnron, Inc. 220 S. Jackson Dt. Addison, MI 49220 Phone: (517)547-8410 Mobile: (517)605- 4542 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ron, there is a truth that the constitution says that with a court order, almost anything can be searched. I don't know that any of us really seriously disagree with that. If there were an absolute privacy, then we'd be unable to catch or prosecute some really bad people. Now let's look at CALEA. CALEA was written to allow simple phone taps in a non-wired world - electronic switching of POTS. Seems reasonable, seeing as how Congress did ante up the money to pay the subjects to make the changes. When we read the FAQ, we find absolute requirements that EVERY cpe or AP you have be changed to become CALEA compliant. How many of you run stuff that's now out of date or no longer produced? How many of you have equipment that physically lacks the capability of being changed to provide the data mirror capability? Again, the FAQ, ALL equipment providers must make their equipment compliant. And what if they don't? A LOT of our stuff comes from offshore or outside our borders. Arbitrary demands we include certain specified functionality including certain code in all equipment.. What if they won't? It becomes illegal to use, that's what. What if they do? We're handing the mechanism used to intercept law enforcement type demands to people outside our country, with no loyalty, obligations, or even assurance of fidelity. Can you say built in back door? And OUR posteriors are on the line, since WE have to GAURANTEE privacy and confidentiality. Even though we produce none of it, wrote none of it, and have no recourse on the people who did. Even worse, we're totally at someone else's mercy to maintain full and bug-free compliance through upgrades, updates, etc. So, if the code won't fit into your Trango's firmware, guess who will be buying new Trango equipment? What if you own stuff that's no longer in production. Do you suppose compliance backfitting will be at a 'nice' price? Just examples of big brother injecting himself into your network, business, pocketbook. And WISPA won't even COMMENT to the regulators that is is TOTALLY WRONG. Instead, the leadership browbeats the membership when they object. It's the law they say. We only lost because nobody would object. Yes, it's all wrong, but the strategy is to isolate all who would object, and beat them down one at a time. One equipment maker at a time, one ISP at a time, one trade association at a time. All our leadership does is play politics, attack and isolate the individuals who object. When it finally results in a bunch of our industry failing, the comment will be that's the price of doing business, by those who remain and persist in the pursuit of market dominance. Frankly, today, I have pneumonia, the flu, and a cold... and that doesn't make me half as sick as how we've been taken down. 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/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:09:23 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer wrote Mark, your info is 3 years old We have to be ready to tap our lines. Even IMs. marlon I think you missed my point, Marlon... That being that not even the government is a reliable source of information about what the government wants and demands. www.askcalea.com is direct from their mouths. Yes, it's old, but then the site is still considered live. THE FCC is saying one thing, a different agency is saying another. Concurrently. I have been attempting for how long now, to get across to you people that this whole CALEA flap for ISP's is NOT LAW, but opinion from the FCC, where it's attempting to write law instead of Congress. It's a mess, because it's NOT LAW, only Congress can write law and it has yet to write a law that says we have to do squat. Frankly, I think every broadband ISP should file and say we will never be compliant and just let them TRY to shut down every ISP in the country. It's about time we told THEM where to get off, rather than being lambs to the slaughter. But no. WISPA leads the charge to slaughter it's own industry by begging to be regulated out of existence. Just three years ago, the WISP industry and WISPA was going to show the world just how scrappy, independent and courageous we were. We did alright. We turned into worms and mashed ourselves into the pavement instead. One can only imagine the reaction if some actual competitive threat came along. 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/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:31:56 -0400, Dawn DiPietro wrote Mark, wispa wrote: I have been attempting for how long now, to get across to you people that this whole CALEA flap for ISP's is NOT LAW, but opinion from the FCC, where it's attempting to write law instead of Congress. It's a mess, because it's NOT LAW, only Congress can write law and it has yet to write a law that says we have to do squat. Did you even bother to read the press release mentioned in your recent post? http://www.askcalea.com/docs/20040317.fbi.release.pdf As quoted from the press release mentioned above; Congress enacted CALEA in 1994 to help the nation's law enforcement community maintain its ability to use court-authorized electronic surveillance as an important investigative tool in an era of new telecommunications technologies and services. Today, electronic surveillance plays a vitally important role in law enforcement's ability to ensure national security and public safety. Also quoted from the same press release; Specifically, the petition requests the FCC establish rules that formally identify services and entities covered by CALEA, so both law enforcement and industry are on notice with respect to CALEA obligations and compliance. The petition makes this request because disagreements continue between industry and law enforcement over whether certain services are subject to CALEA. The petition requests [WINDOWS-1252?] the FCC find broadband access and broadband telephony to be subject to CALEA. Ok... here's an old joke. What's the difference between dogs and cats? The dog looks at you and says you give me everything, provide me with home, care, medicine, food, take care of all my needs... You must be a god!. The cat looks at you and says you give me everything, provide me with home, care, medicine, food, take care of all my needs... I must be a god!. We're saying EXACTLY the same thing, but the perspective is different. Read up on CALEA itself. There's absolutely NOTHING in it that even remotely addresses ISP's. It addresses TAPPING TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS. Nothing else. It is VERY specific. When it was written, broadband didn't even EXIST, how COULD they have written a law that applies to it? It's as if Congress wrote a law that regulates the maintenance schedules on trains. Along comes OSHA, and demands that the DOT rule that the law must apply to trucking, as well, even though the whole concept is absurd. Congress knew it would NEVER get away with just wholesale handing it's shopping list of demands to industry for changes in the way it's equipment worked, and making industry PAY for it. Duhhh. That would never have made it past... well... even a kangaroo court. And the telcos would have fought it, collectively, with all thier legal muscle. Over the years, the FCC has (correctly) and and consistently insisted we are NOT telecommunications services or providers. Now, it suddenly says we ARE, but only for purposes of CALEA. Ohhh, could you park that decision on anything closer to what resembles vapor? I doubt it. Even worse, since the law didn't apply to us, it doesn't pay for what it OBVIOUSLY has to pay for. The FCC cannot just spend money, Congress has to do that. So, along comes the FCC and says WE have to pay for it. I've said this before, I'll say it again, the FCC threw in the most egregious demands they could think of (like requiring us to pay for it), in order to ensure this would LOSE in a legal challenge, since they weren't inclined to continue arguing with the FBI and DOJ. So, instead of defending what was defensible, they sidestepped and tossed the mess in our laps, and we're just sitting here taking it without so much as a word of protest. Gee, we must look like real shmucks to them by now. EVERYONE fights or at least ARGUES back when they do stuff... well, except for us. We beat on our own people for objecting. MAn, READ THE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON EVERYTHING THE FCC DOES! Fear to tell them they're wrong? Heck no, they say it every possible way they can think of! Had Congress tried CALEA without paying for it initially, the fight would have been HUGE, CALEA would have been tossed out in court on very firm ground I am sure. The FCC doesn't write law. It can't. The DOJ and FBI have NO END TO THE LIST OF DEMANDS, their wishes are infinitely long. But just because they WANT it doesn't mean they get it, at our expense. You and I pay taxes, so that when the government wants something, it has to debate, vote, and pony up and pay in the public budget for it. If we, the people, were not protected by the Constitution, the police would just stop us and demand we fill their car with gas, buy them new tires, tune it up, repaint their cars, use OUR building for their office, provide them internet for free, the list goes on and on and on. After all, we have to have cops
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:21:53 -0400, Peter R. wrote Mark, CALEA IS LAW. There are interpretations of that law, but they have been upheld by courts. YOu're arguing against things I'm not saying. CALEA is not the opinion of the DOJ or FCC. It is not far-reaching (like say the Patriot Act) or secret and possibly illegal like the NSA-ATT wiretapping / surveillance. The whole idea that WE are covered under CALEA is just FCC opinion, which is as changeable and variable as the wind. The ruling is capricious and founded on VAPOR, not substance. I just cannot believe you approve of unfunded federal mandates for public purposes. CALEA was not. Misapplying CALEA is. This is not OSHA mandates. This is not the same as requiring that a tower service company require their climbers to use a safety system. Not even close. If the federal government is justified with making us provide, AT OUR EXPENSE, law enforcement services, then we're one little itty bitty non- existent step from from being mandated to do ANYTHING they happen to wish for, and the wish lists from the swamp on the Potomac are so large they boggle the mind. And don't give me the we play dead for regulatory favors in the future crap. Nothing we do will buy us one MOMENT's worth of consideration, in EITHER direction. 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/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:07:51 -0400, Adam Greene wrote Hi, While I appreciate Mark's comments and point of view, I for one would like to also start looking for ways to possibly comply with CALEA in a cost-effective way. I'm afraid that if the conversation here is limited to whether we should comply or not, we might lose the opportunity to share with each other about technical implementation. EVen if tomorrow, CALEA vanished, it is true that we need the capabilities of doing this. Thanks for pointing that out. The problem lies in that the CALEA technical discussion revolves around unknown technical requirements / capabilities. We can only discuss it in sort of a theoretical concept. At the moment, my abilities are ... well, they don't exist. Nothing in the software / hardware on my network, AT ANY POINT can be modified to do this. I would have to go to my upstream and ask them to mirror or log or otherwise catch the traffic, since that is the only present single point ot exist where all traffic in / out of my network passes. And that won't be for long, as I'll soon have multiple providers and dynamic routing. I can't even do policy based routing at the moment to force all the traffic from one client to anywhere. However, none of this really matters. We don't know what the demands are technically. The theoretical requirements are that we intercept at the CPE. Who the bloody heck has CPE that can do that? Few WISP's do. The vast majority do not. Further, if CALEA requirements apply to WISP's, then CALEA requirements apply to WISP equipment providers, just like they do to telco equipment providers. Another can of worms, entirely. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the conversation about whether to comply should be halted, just that some room be given to those of us who also want to speak about implementation. To add to that, I welcome the conversation about not compliance, since that's a very specific and detailed demand, but simply about how to assist LEA's in catching bad guys. That's something a good lot of us will eventually end up doing. I just don't believe it is proper or right for me to be an unpaid lackey who is forced to do whatever they want out of my own pocket. I'm still interested if anyone has any point of view about any of the compliance methods that I discussed in my original post, from a technical standpoint. Thanks, Adam - Original Message - From: wispa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:16 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods 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/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:17:09 -0400, Dawn DiPietro wrote Mark, Wireless providers DO have to comply with CALEA whether you like it or not. As quoted from the link I sent you earlier; Nor does our interpretation of section 332 of the Communications Act and its implementing regulations here alter either our decision in the CALEA proceeding to apply CALEA obligations to all wireless broadband Internet access providers, including mobile wireless providers, or our interpretations of the provisions of CALEA itself. As the Commission found, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed, the purposes and intent of CALEA are strikingly different than those of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which is [WINDOWS-1252?] embedded in the Communications Act. As the Court noted, CALEA- -unlike the 1996 Act--is a law-enforcement statute . . . [WINDOWS-1252?] (requiring telecommunications carriers to enable the government to conduct electronic surveillance) . . . . The Communications Act (of [WINDOWS-1252?] which the Telecom Act is part), by contrast, was enacted [f] or the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in [WINDOWS-1252?] communication by wire and radio . . . . The Commission's interpretation of CALEA reasonably differs from its interpretation [WINDOWS-1252?] of the 1996 Act, given the differences between the two statutes.121 Thus, our interpretation of the separate statutory provisions in section 332 of the Communications Act, whose purposes closely track those of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Communications Act generally, in no way affects our determination that mobile wireless broadband Internet access service providers are subject to the CALEA statute.122 Here is the link again so you can read it if you choose to do so. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-30A1.pdf Dawn, respectfully... But, please understand my point. Tomorrow, the FCC COULD reverse it's opinion and we'd be exempt. JUST LIKE THAT, without a single court decision, without a single sentence from Congress, etc. In fact, WE WERE EXEMPT until 2006, when the FCC changed its mind. So, what kind of law applies ... or doesn't... Depending on the whim of unelected beaurocrats? CALEA isn't that vague. It's just misapplied. I maintain that the FCC is in error in it's interpretation of what is a telecommunications provider and we should be shouting it at them at 36dbm and 102 decibels. In fact, EVERY ISP, NSP, etc, organization should be snowing the FCC under in objections. And maybe some legal efforts, too. 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/
RE: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:29:18 -0400, Jeff Broadwick wrote Mark, Right or wrong, Congress regularly delegates rule-making to the various agencies. They pass laws that are purposely vague and/or broad and they empower the various agencies (and the courts, ultimately) to fill in the blanks. But CALEA wasn't vague. They used as precise of wording as they could in 1994 and there wasn't an iota of doubt as to what they wanted and who they wanted it from. It's questionable Constitutionally, if you believe that we should follow the original intent of the Constitution...but that cat left the bag decades ago. Time for some stuffing the cat BACK, then. Gee, every day I read some man or woman died serving me in some far off place. And we're afraid to say NO! to the overreaching fat sow in DC? Forget that noise, as my dad used to say when he thought my arguments were weak. 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/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:20:15 -0400, Blair Davis wrote I've been watching this discussion for a bit. Up front, I have to say I agree with Mark. Say the FBI and DOJ wanted a way to track any automobile in the country in real time, (so the bad guys can't hide their movements). They go to the DOT and the the DOT decides that the way to do this is to require every auto in the country to have a GPS and cellular modem in it. So the DOT mandates this, but doesn't provide any funding for it. Instead, they expect the auto owners to pay for the equipment and the cellular company's to provide the service for free. Just how many of you will go for this? Do you think the cellular company's will go for it? The example above is EXACTLY the same as the CALEA requirements being applied to us. Pretty good analogy, except that it would be more like having the cellular providers provide BOTH the equipment and service, but that's just quibbling around the edges. If they want to pay for it, fine. For my network, they can expect to pay about $40K to replace my MESH based AP's for me And, I don't know how much it will cost to fix my automated sign-up system for mobile and hot-spot users, (because it works with the MESH AP's only). I'm not even sure that hot-spots can EVER be made compliant. What about my 30min per day free stuff for tourists to check their e- mail? Right now, I can locate a person to a tower. Not to an individual CPE. And I see no way to do so without wholesale equipment replacement. I'll bet there are others in the same spot. I know that at least 10 to 20% of my customers have wireless AP's in their home. No way can I gaurantee that traffic I intercept is actually from or to the individual in question. I don't think we're being asked to do this, mind you, but it leads to the question of whether LEA should be attempting to bend network operations to their notion of what surveillance is, or should they change what they see as serveillance to how the services work. Again, this whole mess is a result of the FCC applying a PHONE SERVICE INTERCEPT law to a service that is NOT analogous and doesn't work the same way. On another subject Two months ago, we were ready to join WISPA. At the time, I felt that WISPA had proven its longevity and was becoming a mature voice for the WISP's. But, after the form 477 issue, FCC sticker issue, and now the CALEA issue, I'm pretty sure that I disagree with the majority of the members on what stance should be taken on these issues. That being the case, why should I still join? Let me state up front, that I argued for the formation of WISPA. I still believe in the idea of a trade organization for the industry I am in. I don't believe that was a mistake. WISPA will have regular elections to choose leadership. However, the leadership in place is in place, and will be a for a while yet. Unless we're arguing to remove leadership, which I think would be a terrible blow, an extremely divisive action, the idea is that we have to work with the leadership that exists as of right now. Some time ago, I formally cancelled my membership, and made it clear that when I believe that the leadership will make some effort to represent what I consider the interests of their myriad small members, I will again at least financially support WISPA. Does the stated leadership's stand on this reflect the the majority / minority of the member's views? I don't know. I don't really know WHAT the WISPA membership in general thinks. I don't know what the WISP industry in general thinks. Unfortunately, I really don't think that the volunteer leadership has the time or energy or resources to dig deep, engage in informed debate, and make sure that all views and ideas are well heard, and then get some kind of consensus of the views of the industry or membership. That's just the nature of the beast, for a startup organization that's small and driven by volunteers. Thus, WISPA has represented in DC what the views of the individuals are that both can and have gone to DC in our behalf. Being a volunteer driven organization, the only people who can serve are those who have the time, the money, and the drive, to become leadership. That leaves the vast majority of us out - me included. Peter suggested that people run for leadership of WISPA with contrarian views. I'm not really sure that's the solution. With the way it operates now, we'd just end up with a leadership bitterly divided within itself, and still probably not understanding or knowing the real guts of the industry itself, and still not really representting the industry. I do not see leadership of WISPA as being a tool for activism or agendas. For the most part, the WISPA leadership has asked the membership for input on much of what it has done. Sometimes, even important stuff doesn't get more than
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:49:43 -0400, Adam Greene wrote Hi, As a new member of WISPA I am reading with interest all of the postings about CALEA from the past few weeks. Thankfully, we have designed our network in such a way that all customer IP traffic passes through at least one Cisco switch before it can be bridged to any other customer or routed to the Internet, so I think we'll be able to SPAN all customer traffic and from there manipulate the data streams and hand them off to law enforcement. The only exception to this case might be our Waverider CCU's, which are routing packets between various end-users. I am going to contact them to see what their take is on implementing LI -- we might need to stop using the CCU's as routers. The main questions I have for the forum are ... assuming we can at least make a copy of a given customer's traffic without the customer realizing it (i.e. non-intrusively), how are we going to be able to format the data to be able to hand it off to law enforcement? We obviously want to do this in the most cost-effective way possible (read: open source solution). http://www.opencalea.org/ definitely looks promising, but it is just getting off the ground as far as I can tell. I wonder if there are any other groups out there working on this. As far as compliance standards go, as far as I can tell, the one that most fits us might be ATIS -T1.IPNA -ISP data, but I'm still confused about that. When I visit http://www.askcalea.net/standards.html, I see a link for Wireline: PTSC T1.IAS which takes me to https://www.atis.org/docstore/product.aspx?id=22665. Is this all the same as ATIS -T1.IPNA -ISP? Somehow I don't have the feeling that paying $164.00 for this standard is going to help get me in the right direction We do have a couple savvy Linux guru-types in house that could deploy a good open-source solution and keep it updated, I think. But I don't think we're up to developing such a solution ourselves from scratch. I did find a device made by a company called Solera (http://www.voip-news.com/feature/solera-calea-voip-packet-capture- 031907/) which looks like it could be cost-effective (read: ~$7000.00) for a small ISP (read: ~1,000 customers) like us. Obviously we would prefer open source, but at least it was a relief to see that we might be able to avoid the $40,000 - $100,000 solutions I've been hearing about from TTP's and other (larger) ISPs. Matt Liotta, you mentioned that you have the ability to provide lawful intercept in compliance with CALEA for our single-homed downstream ISP customers assuming there is no NAT involved. Would you be willing to share some details about the solution you've been able to come up with? I do see the opportunity that this whole CALEA thing could provide to some ISP's who figure out a way to develop a cost-effective solution and then offer consulting services or **affordable** TTP services to other companies ... I also read with interest the Baller law group's Key Legal and Technical Requirements and Options for CALEA (http://www.baller.com/pdfs/BHLG-CTC_CALEA_Memo.pdf) that Peter Radizeski forwarded to the list. I had not taken seriously the possibility of filing a section 109(b) petition, but if we do due diligence and really do not find an affordable solution to deploy on our network, I think we may have to seriously consider that (for example, the part about asking to be considered compliant as long as we can meet most of LI's requirements, if not all of them). Please excuse the long and rambling post ... I'm just having a hard time finding out how to grab a hold of this CALEA beast. Hi, let me quote from www.askcalea.com On March 17, 2004, we published a press release regarding our joint petition. Q: Does the petition for CALEA rulemaking propose to apply CALEA to all types of online communication, including instant messaging and visits to websites? A: No. The petition proposes CALEA coverage of only broadband Internet access service and broadband telephony service. Other Internet-based services, including those classified as information services such as email and visits to websites, would not be covered. Q: Does the petition propose extensive retooling of existing broadband networks that could impose significant costs? A: No. The petition contends that CALEA should apply to certain broadband services but does not address the issue of what technical capabilities those broadband providers should deliver to law enforcement. CALEA already permits those service providers to fashion their own technical standards as they see fit. If law enforcement considers an industry technical standard deficient, it can seek to change the standard only by filing a special deficiency petition before the Commission. It is the FCC, not law enforcement, that decides whether any capabilities should be added
Re: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me.
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:08:56 -0400, Dawn DiPietro wrote All, And which of society's groups of will be eager to take advantage of free Video On Demand? Why the people who can't afford to pay for these high dollar services or would prefer not to. The next question is, what kind of bandwidth will it take to deliver VoD per user? Let me qualify this question by laying some of the assumptions that will need to be addressed in this answer. First off, on the average Friday night, at 6:00PM, more than 50% of American households have more than one TV set on (read as more than one continuous video stream playing) and I would suggest this trend will continue, if not increase as the net-centric services improve. Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one stream. If we move into the realm of high definition we are now looking at a rate of 14Mbps (uncompressed) with perhaps a chance of delivering reasonable quality using a 4Mbps sustained stream - per video is use. That does not take into account any bandwidth for telephone or Internet access, should these services be required. What we can see is that any network that is only capable of delivering sub 1Mbps speeds (as measured in real throughput) is now obsolete - we simply refuse to admit it yet. Of course, we can still continue to bury our heads in the sand and wait for the inevitable crisis. I'm sorta puzzled by this claim of crisis. I can't think of any...and I mean... ANY provider, who can support simultaneous and sustained 1+Mbit to more than half of thier customer base. Cable can't. The telco's really don't have that much bandwidth to their CO's. The backbone companies haven't got anywhere NEAR enough capacity to manage that. Now, if I could cache and redistribute using some kind of proxy mechanism, I could do it if the great majority of the traffic were streaming data from common sources. But scaling would be... well...quite a challenge. It would require that all my clients would be restricted to only a few sources for all of the streaming data. While I can see Ken's point, I believe he's very much wrong in his analysis of the state of the both the technology and the competition. I know I'm not ready for VOIP AND VOD to half my customers at the same time. But then neither is any of my competition. I guess the question is... If it jumps up on us, who can restructure faster? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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/
Re: [WISPA] New Certification list
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:11:13 -0800, George Rogato wrote Hey everyone, Jack Unger and myself have started this group to create a process of getting uncertified systems certified. The reason for the certification is to help bring wisps into compliance and legitimize their operation. Great idea. I subscribed. I'm definitely interested in the process. 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/
RE: [WISPA] Clearwire stock dropping
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:55:31 -0500, Brad Belton wrote Correct and that I believe is what Matt's point is. Too early to kick CLWR to the curb for at least two reasons: (1) short term market downturn (2) additional 4M shares issued Both of these items can and often will soften a stock value. All that said I think $20 - $24 a share is ridiculous for CLWR. I expect CLWR will bump back up maybe even beyond the IPO price once the market bounces back. The smart money will jump ship saving their skin and the stock will turn downward from that point on. Clearwire has lost more than $460 million during its four-year existence. The company generates about $100 million in annual sales... Ok, Clearwire expects to continue to build out. They expect to spend 1.1 billion, and market hacks expect them to triple the customer base over the next year or so. So, even next year, they're going to spend between 3 and 4 times their gross revenue. AND, they have 664 million debt, too. If they stopped building out and concentrated on sales, I don't know, and nobody seems to know, how much the'll be spending. In other words, nobody seems to know how much of this spending is fixed cost and how much is expansion. Their own claim, is that expenses are near 300 million annual. However, they're apparently not concentrating on market growth, as annual sales only went from 67 to 100 million for all of '06. I read elsewhere that almost all of that growth is due to equipment sales, not customer sales. Then the next article contradicts that. http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/070308/29050_id.html?.v=2 http://www.fool.com/investing/value/2007/03/12/clearwire-burns-cash-churns- investors.aspx?source=eptyholnk303100logvisit=ynpu=y http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/clearwire-shares-pummeled-path- profit/story.aspx?guid=%7BBFAAD8AC%2D3B2E%2D48D4%2DA100%2DDCEC9ACDCAE4% 7Dsiteid=yhoodist=yhoo Certainly McCaw can afford this type of bleeding, but for how long and more importantly how long will Wall Street wait to see the light at the end of the tunnel? Will CLWR ever bask in the sunshine? Long term I only see a decline in value unless they start producing profits real quick! CLWR isn't making any money and doesn't have a bright future of EVER making any money. Hope I'm wrong because a CLWR failure is a failure for fixed wireless as a whole. Actually, it appears they could make money. But the question is, will they stay for ever in the build out mode and spend themselves totally out of money, without marketing to and finding enough customers to pay the bills? I had a potential investor, who was the opposite mind of the CLWR management, who insisted that I not expand to any of my yet not deployed but originally planned sites until I had completely maxed out capacity on everything now in place. Oddly enough, the more sites I have in strategic locations, the greater success I have at potential customer's sites. Then again, I'm not just putting up every location I can find. I figure I can't expect to get more than 3% market penetration in the areas where DSL and/or cable exist, and probably less, and not more than 30% where I'm the lone provider. With a target size of 600-1100 customers in the next 3 years, this means I have to either target 4000 residences with nothing else available, or 40,000 where there's competition. There's more than 4000 homes in the area I'm willing to expand to. The trick is that many of them are isolated areas of a 1, 5, 30 square miles, and we have to continue to do inexpensive expansions to hit those areas. I have a good 1/2 of those covered now, and we're going to add the next 1/4 this spring. If I have 1000 customers, I'll have about $40K a month rolling in, with fixed expenses (not including wages and labor) of about 10%. So, does Clearwire's model sound better than mine, when it comes to likelyhood of survival? 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/
Re: [WISPA] Clearwire stock dropping
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:09:20 -0400, Matt Liotta wrote wispa wrote: Ok, Clearwire expects to continue to build out. They expect to spend 1.1 billion, and market hacks expect them to triple the customer base over the next year or so. So, even next year, they're going to spend between 3 and 4 times their gross revenue. What is interesting is that year over year their revenue is currently growing at 125%, but their expenses are growing at 43%. -Matt It depends on who provides you the figures... It looks like they really can't lose unless they just spend themselves broke without aquiring more customers. I know they spent or spend big time around here, and for the most part, customer satisifaction has been rather mixed. I don't directly c ompete with them, except for a small overlap on the edge of what I consider to be my market, and from what the guy who tried to get hooked up with them told me, he's a whale of lot happier with me than them. Apparently not every technical hurdle has been overcome. 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/
Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:07:33 -0400, Rick Smith wrote Is there anywhere online that actually states WHAT we will need to provide ? I.e. data format, etc. - It was my impression that this was still under discussion at the FBI... There is a specific data format, called LAES, which is an acronym for something or other. As best I can tell, this format costs a license fee if you wish to program something to use it. Thus, NO OPEN SOURCE IS POSSIBLE. http://www.askcalea.net/standards.html Please note, there is no entry for ISP's here. That's because CALEA compliance requirement is merely a reversal of opinion by the FCC less than 12 months ago - May 2006. If you dig into CALEA deeper, you find a requirement for all (switching) equipment vendors to be compliant. Technically, this requires all WISP equipment vendors to be compliant, too. That would mean that Trango, Deliberant, Motorola, Alvarion, etc, would all have to build CALEA compliance into thier equipment if they, in any way, do any data routing or manipulation. SBC / Linux based equipment cannot be made compliant until someone pays the licensing and writes the closed source application, and then we all buy it. Potentially, this could raise the price of WISP gear a lot. Frankly, the more I read this, the more I am convinced that if this industry is to survive this absolutely IDIOTIC nonsense, we're going to have to go back to Washington DC and tell them THERE IS NO WAY we can conform to laws written for the telco. The language is wrong, it doesn't translate, the standards are wrong, they don't hold, it's like demanding that the railroads conform to airline laws, or vice versa. The FCC is just making this crap up as they go, CALEA has no provisions that make the slightest bit of sense for ISP's, and we need to tell them this in clear and unmistakeable terms. Frankly, I'm all for WISPA, Part-15 and whoever else, polling the members for a consensus that says we officially tell the FCC to reverse their decision, and that must go back to Congress, and get laws written to cover us, AND MONEY TO PAY FOR IT, or we'll just refuse. At the prospect of having 500, 1000, or 3000 ISP's refuse, and absolutely NOT having the means of taking down (much less withstand the public outcry) everyone, they'll be forced to do the right thing. Further, someone needs to educate them, that this kind of intercept is NOT, and I mean, NOT necessarily going to provide them squat. For almost no effort, anyone can obfuscate the data going through a TCP/IP connection, and you will NOT capture anything useful. VPN's can be encrypted and even a VOIP call through it would be untraceable, untrackable, undecipherable, and I'll bet that even the FBI cannot break many encryption methods in use today. Further, it's relatively trivial to multi-home your data transfers, which means you won't get what you think you're after, and the subject's data will be incomplete. CALEA made sense for law enforcement purposes for the telcos, but it's woefully out of data and the notion of alligator clip type listening device tap for internet based communications is sadly ridiculous. unfortunately, that's what they're trying to do. CALEA envisioned restoring the simplistic voice recording that used to happen when we had simple copper wires carrying sound across them in analog form. CALEA was the response to switching and telcos transporting that voice digital. That was deemed adequate for CALEA from 1994 to 2002 when the FCC suddenly said that CELL phones had to comply. Gee, they existed when CALEA was written. They think that they can just expand the notion of the 'tap' to a technology light years away from what CALEA applies to as written. It cannot be done without re-writing the rules of networking, the internet, and the public's freedom to communicate, as well. We as an industry owe it to ourselves and we, as citizens, owe it to our country to JUST SAY NO!. It's bad governance, bad business, bad misuse of technology...not to mention, just plain wrong for them to take on an impossible task, and require US to foot the bill for their experimenting. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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/
Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:47:20 -0400, Peter R. wrote During the Brand-X Supreme Court case, the DEA, the FBI and the DOJ clearly spelled out that ISP and VoIP traffic would need to be CALEA compliant. It isn't the FCC, it is the DOJ. Oh, please. The DOJ doesn't write law. the DOJ wants EVERYTHING. If it were up to them, they would intercept every packet of data and every voice transmission, and they've all but said so. Too bad. That's wrong, and that's the truth. Your statements take us back to all the lobbying efforts that CLEC's and ISP's have ever done: Don't regulate us - just them. That's not how it works. If you'd read what I say, instead knee-jerk reaction, you'd know this was wrong. You want UL spectrum. You want more of it. But this is not a one-way street. I have to give up my constitutional rights to get the FCC to carry out it's assigned duties? Hell no! To get you have to give. You have to fill out your forms without whining so much. You have to be able to help the Department of Justice catch the bad guys - without the bad guys knowing. Again, here we go again. You make up stuff and then slam me for it. I don't get it. CALEA is not applicable law. It is WRONG for the feds to require US to pay for what they want. Period. Do you not get that? That's why CALEA contained a half billion dollars, to fund the changes that they wanted implemented, and it was a VERY NARROW LAW. Just because the DOJ and FBI suddenly show up and ask for the moon is no reason under the sun to even suggest we should go along with it. They don't write the law, AND CONGRESS DID NOT WRITE ANY LAW TO APPLY TO US! The FCC has misapplied via opinion that it does, when it does not. Polling the WISPs. Yeah! They'd answer. You can't get them to fill out a poll or a form. Not when it comes to begging the feds to do us in, of course not. When Patrick says herding long tail cats in a roomful of rocking chairs, he is almost accurate. (It is actually MUCH harder than that in this industry). The squeaky wheels are few but much larger than the silent majority. But typically they can ruin it for the lot. RUIN Ruin what? Do you ACTUALLY think all this stupid brown-nosing is going to buy us something? Please. That's being more gullible than the emperor's cheering squad. Those of us who have the guts to speak up are the only ones who appear to have ANY interest in your future at all. 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/
Re: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
, CALEA is improperly applied to ISP's. They need to go back to congress, get Congress to vote on tapping internet connections, and then come back to us to ask US how best to do this. And let Congress ante up the money for doing so. That's nothing different than how CALEA was concieved and written for Telco's. And the half billion Congress voted to fund reimbursement was the same thing... Absolutely required. What they're trying to do to us, is no different than if the cops stopped you and demanded you fill up their cruiser with fuel and buy them new tires, so we can catch the bad guys. This is not a cost of doing business as some are trying to imply. This is a federal mandate for public purpose, mostly applied to individuals and small business. But you say there's already a lot of those. So? This isn't the forum to debate those. This is teh forum to debate WISP's and mandates. And we need to look out for US. There's nobody else to fight for us, we MUST do it ourselves, whether it's resisting mandates or defending our ability to conduct business freely. If the government wants us to deliver services in a ubiquitous fashion, and we need spectrum that works that way, it is UNRELATED to this issue, entirely. Pandering to them in one matter won't buy you 2 seconds of consideration in another. And what if it did? What are you willing to trade on MY behalf to get what YOU want? And what right have you to do that? As I mentioned to Marlon... What you say in DC will have to speak for me. he knows my thoughts. And what people offer to comply to will be offered for all, from their viewpoint. I speak for me, and me alone. We can agree or disagree. But let's not see any more of this his opinions aren't valid for this industry crap. That's the fastest way I know of to kill an organization trying to put diverse people together and get them to try to work together or agree on something. The DOJ is NOT someone I am willing to take on faith when they claim the authority to do something invasive. I seem to remember that they felt CARNIVORE was legal and justified. Seems odd that one of the more hardcore conservatives (okay I'm betting he really is a true libertarian) is the one saying WHOA to a Republican run FCC and DOJ on an issue of privacy vs security. I'm not being partisan, here. I don't talk about socialism, communism, political parties, or anything else. Just ideas, and how they affect us. Is it political or practical? I doubt anything in dealing with government is not political in some way. Mostly, I just look at the bottom line of the risks vs opportunity column and note those things that aren't going my way. And I further note that some people who claim to be my friend are rather in favor of some stuff that's solidly in risk column, and there's NO corresponding opportunity to offset it. No matter how cynical we might be about politics or political issues, THAT equation is not one any of us deem irrelevant. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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/
RE: [WISPA] Calea - what will we need to provide ?
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:08:10 -0500, Jonathan Schmidt wrote The question is... if we're not providing VOIP service, doesn't this apply to the VOIP provider, and not me? How does the introductory reference to cable operators seeming immunity to this in this document square with these discussions? http://www.scte.org/documents/standards/approved/ANSISCTE24132006.pdf . . . j o n a t h a n 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/
RE: [WISPA] walmart rfid
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:12:13 -0400, Rick Smith wrote no, 900 mhz rfid would be 20mhz bands. They MUST be exceeding EIRP, tho, because I've never seen problems with rfid at close ranges like that, and not having good reads with normal, or even less than normal power. Problem is, rfid is 100% tx/rx 100% of the time. How far away is this from you ? I guarantee it's a piece of bad equipment - cable or such - on their end, leaking. Certified letter or bb gun, your choice... ;) Actually, that may not be true. I did a lot of reading up on RFID, and the loading doc version that Walmart uses requires full EIRP to work, because they are intending to read all theindividual tags inside of cartons, containers, etc, and these are passive devices, needing the RF field to create the power for the tag to transmit. Additionally, some of the systems are FHSS and use the full spectrum, including being maximum eirp at the same time. Walmart won't talk to you, because they've been assured by the RFID maker that there's nothing you can do to them. However, that doesn't preclude the more weighty matters of retailing... Like bad publicity. Like, getting your local paper to carry a story about how WalMart installed an RFID inventory tracking control and it took X number of people's internet connections away due to interference, and they won't even discuss mitigation with you. Mitigation of interference is a big thing, actually, because they need to install several of these devices in some instances, within a single building. They accomplish this by sheilding - metal shielding to curtain off the rf emissions, so that each station can work isolated form the others. Walmart is aware of this, as is the maker of the RFID system. I would suggest that after some negative publicity, they might be willing to talk to you about sheilding, especially since you could point a focused beam at them and cause serious inventory control problems for them, as well. The problem they will have, is that the RFID tag outputs are measured in a few microwatts, and even at a few feet, interference need not be all that strong to cause problems. I would approach them at this angle, explaining it's in their interest to sheild their system, because your equipment, if moved, can definitely interfere with them. 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/
Re: [WISPA] news
, competitive quality combinations that have NO limits on the innovation and imaginations of the operators or programmers or individuals who can innovatively create their own unique and yet compliant solutions and services. I urge the FCC to unstrangle the innovation of WISP's, ISP's, Information services with a ruleset which encourages, rather stifles, the free and open innovation of technology. 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/
[WISPA] Ooops, TV Whitespace filing subject change
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 13:35:07 -0700, wispa wrote I filed a comment on TV Whitespace today... I had to think about it for a long time, first. Here's my comments, probably not in good format, due to the webmail interface. == In this proceeding, the FCC is proposing to allow unlicensed use of TV Whitespace. The stated goal is to promote broadband and consumer and business information services - presumably data, video, internet and other networking applications. I highly agree with this idea. There is one drawback to this notion - that being that in this spectrum space, almost any consumer item that might be purchased retail, would have extensive reach. The characteristic that makes this spectrum valuable and absolutely essential for the deployment of ubiquitous wireless services, is it's ability to penetrate outdoor obstacles, such as foliage, buildings, etc. This same characteristic also creates a huge challenge, in that if a vast array of consumer items, like cordless phones, baby monitors, in home networking, or even on-campus networking is deployed in a non-directional topology, the interference reach is enormous, and will easily result in the first two or three users of any particular frequency spectrum preventing any additional use or deployments, due to wide area interference issues. Unlicensed, at least to me, implies the ability for anyone, anywhere, to use this spectrum for ANY purpose. In the unlicensed spectrum, where Part-15 rules apply, in 900 mhz, 2.4 mhz, and 5 ghz, interference is rampant, often from devices which are spectrum hogs in that they use all available spectrum to accomplish very little. Often these devices are designed for robustness in interference rejection, which means they are relatively unaffected, but cause total disruption for any other use. While appropriate spectrum (well below 1 ghz) is required if the Commission's stated goals of ubiquitious information services deployments can possibly become realized in any fashion, the Commission needs to use judgement and careful thought about rules governing its use. Non-exclusive licensing, similar to that proposed for 3650 - 3700 Mhz, requiring licensing be restricted solely to information services would accomplish this. Alternatively, rules which allow only outdoor type of digital information or networking equipment to be used would accomplish the same. Additionally, both TV Whitespace and 3650-3700 mhz present an opportunity for incredibly rapid innovantion, provided that some small adjustments to equipment certification rules could be made. Across the nation, thousands of small, community, block, neighborhood, or even free public access networks have been built on commodity WiFi equipment. These networks are often not technically compliant with Part-15 rules, because individuals were able to innovate with software replacement, or removed consumer shells from retail or surplus retail (often obsolete) products and then reconstructed them suitable for outdoor use. Today, commodity networking equipment cost is a tiny fraction of that of proprietary. It's often built on open standards, which has encouraged programmers (who may have no RF understanding ) to write software that, coupled with a pre-built networking modules and an inexpensive processor becomes a device that for very little money has technological capabilities that exceed even the imagined limits of just a decade ago. Often, they exceed the capabilities of any commercial products available, at any price. However, technically, all this is illegal, even though components which have already been tested and found completely compliant and within standard limits have their environment changed, and thus no longer technically comply with the certification methodology and rules. These illegal devices often have technical capabilities that vastly exceed any certified products that a single manufacturer can create, because they are the collaborative work of thousands of people world-wide, using free tools and free software, and open standards. I cannot more strongly encourage the FCC to consider a scheme of certification for WISP, Information SErvices Providers, etc, equipment that takes advantage of this incredibly enormous potential of the open and free world of ideas, talent, and innovation. This could be accomplished with a componentized rules, where a nearly fully self-contained RF module, like a mini-pci card, is certified compliant to an RF profile, including out of band emissions, etc, and can then be controlled by anyone's software, who can then certify that it does not operate the rf module outside of it's certified limits. Then, antenna manufacturers could then certify the gain, and directionality and rf profiles of thier products, which would allow a simple profile matching and limiting process which would then produce a huge array
Re: [WISPA] Justice Department Takes Aim at Image-Sharing Sites
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:41:29 -0600, Sam Tetherow wrote Wouldn't this be the equivalent of requiring all store owners to install surveillance cameras and retain the tapes for 2 years just in case law enforcement might need the footage for a conviction of some crime that may happen in the future? Excellent analogy. The difference being that there's WalMart and Kmart and hundreds of other well funded retailers with lawyers who'll tell them to stuff it. The little guys get nailed instead, because we haven't got a raft of lawyers waiting around on retainer for something to do. 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/
Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 02:22:57 -0600 (CST), Butch Evans wrote On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, wispa wrote: While you're there... or, perhaps on your way there, please consider the fact that you and whoever is meeting there are deciding how every other WISP will structure his network and what they will be forced to spend or do. You will...or will not... set a standard, and then the FCC and FBI will...or will not...accept it, and everyone who has filed that they will be compliant persuant standards discussions will be obligated to do what is laid out in the end. You're a pretty bright guy, Marlon, and I suspect it won't take very long to see what direction this will head. You will be playing with the fates of a lot of people who did not choose this in ANY way. Choosing it (or not) is not relevant. The law is what it is. Yes, the law is what it is. It was NEVER written to apply to ISP's nor internet services. Those are additions to the law that the FCC tacked on at a whim. The FCC has no authority to write law, only Congress can do that. This is why the FCC now holds contradictory views on whether an ISP is an information service or a telecommunications service. Depending on the issues, like taxes vs CALEA, we are, or we are NOT a telecommunications service. Understand? We are and we are not, all at the same time, so that it's convenient to require CALEA, but they can exempt us from other regulations, because we're not. THIS WILL BE RESOLVED, and not likely in our favor unless we begin arguing back! You will either choose to follow the law or not. If you choose to follow the law, fine. If you choose to NOT follow the law, fine. Either way, your fate is in YOUR hands...not Marlon or anyone else. I think you've made it abundantly clear that whatever the law says, you are intent on NOT following it Actually, I am following the law, it's the FCC that playing games here, attempting to cross a chasm in two leaps. This is why I keep saying we MUST object. I haven't filed, because I cannot say I can or cannot comply. However, if this costs more than $100 to implement (that's all I have in the bank at this moment), I will simply file stating I cannot and will not comply, period. Good deal. Don't comply. With only $100 in the bank...you can only purchase one more CPEHope you charge enough at install time to get the next one. You don't need to worry about my business issues, Butch. Trust me, we're in very sold shape. If the FCC then desires to shut me down then, They will have to do so forcibly. I will simply write a letter to all my customers, local newspapers, and state simply that the FCC has decided to take over all internet communications in a few months, and that there's no room left for small operations, and reccommend that they direct all questions to the FCC about why thier internet service will be no more. I will cause them more grief and bury their office in irate phone calls and letters than they can possibly handle. I Let me try to understand this. You have enough sway with all your (how many customers) to cause the FCC's office more grief...than they can handle? And, you only have $100 in the bank? Something isn't adding up. Maybe I missed something. Yeah, you missed a lot, Butch. Like how fast the FCC is buried just by frivolous applications for 3650 STA's...??? Remember Patrick's comments... understaffed, underbudgeted.. know several sites where I can reach millions who WILL be activists, if we're not going to act. I'm absolutely positive they Hmm...Why haven't you used these sites to run for office? It seems to me that you would prefer a life as a politician (I mean besides stating on a public list that you intend to NOT comply with the laws established by regulatory agencies that affect you in a way you don't like). Other than that one little issue, I'd guess you would be a great politician (and likely have more than $100 to show for it). You'd not like me in politics. I'm always this defensive of principle and always this blunt. I suggest you pass this on to the FCC and FBI, along with my estimation that at least 20% of all small operators will do exactly the same. I am SICK AND TIRED of being fed to the wolves without the slightest resistance. You, of all people, should know what it And just who is doing the feeding, Mark? Marlon? The FCC? WISPA? One must sit back and ask himself, who stuck our collective heads up in front of the regulators, asked for stuff, and then never even said boo when the FCC started making capricious rulings? and casual networks, small community and free networks, small joint efforts by a few people to get for themselves what they have a right to get. All possibly being wiped out by careless and overreaching federal agencies. Who's gonna stick up for them? WISPA's just bleating
Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi
approval of the notion that lawful intercept is necessary and that we're certainly willing to do so, but that it MUST be done right. We do this, and we gain stature, with the FCC, with Congress, with the public. It won't be pretty, it won't be fun, and it can certainly turn sour. You just can't lose when you stand up for doing the RIGHT thing. It just requires leadership, clear stands on principle, and the nerve to actually take a stand, rather than just go along with the expedient means. I beg of you... Rethink... GROW A PAIR already. Get a backbone. Do the right thing. 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/
Re: [WISPA] tv whitespaces filings
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:32:02 -0800, Alan Cain wrote Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Over time, I have attempted to respond to a number of things, and I NEVER find the page to do so. The FCC has one of the most obscure organizational methods I have ever run into. I remember having to follow someone else's link every time. They do listen... I found some things I said quoted near verbatim in the RO on 3650. maybe permanent links on the WISPA homepage for each filing would be good. Good grief guys, there are only 12 new filings in the last week or so!! I don't have a cute secretary like Mary, Marlon. **200738030387** -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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/
Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:35:29 -0800, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote Hi All, We have a meeting set up for the 22nd in Va. I have 4 people set to go to it at this time but I'd like a 5th. I'm after a network admin type. Anyone have the time and recourses available? Or if I missed your offer earlier, please let me know. I have to get info to the FBI ASAP so if you can send a network admin to this meeting (and possibly join our calea standards committee) please let me know. WISPA member companies will have first crack at this, but I'll conceder others as well. While you're there... or, perhaps on your way there, please consider the fact that you and whoever is meeting there are deciding how every other WISP will structure his network and what they will be forced to spend or do. You will...or will not... set a standard, and then the FCC and FBI will...or will not...accept it, and everyone who has filed that they will be compliant persuant standards discussions will be obligated to do what is laid out in the end. You're a pretty bright guy, Marlon, and I suspect it won't take very long to see what direction this will head. You will be playing with the fates of a lot of people who did not choose this in ANY way. I haven't filed, because I cannot say I can or cannot comply. However, if this costs more than $100 to implement (that's all I have in the bank at this moment), I will simply file stating I cannot and will not comply, period. If the FCC then desires to shut me down then, They will have to do so forcibly. I will simply write a letter to all my customers, local newspapers, and state simply that the FCC has decided to take over all internet communications in a few months, and that there's no room left for small operations, and reccommend that they direct all questions to the FCC about why thier internet service will be no more. I will cause them more grief and bury their office in irate phone calls and letters than they can possibly handle. I know several sites where I can reach millions who WILL be activists, if we're not going to act. I'm absolutely positive they have NEVER even considered the notion (and probably do not care in the slightest) that what they do could devastate people's individual lives or futures. Nor do I think they care at all about anything but their own convenience and political futures. I doubt a single person involved on the regulator's end considers that since they decided to take on and regulate an industry which is probably populated with the highest percentage of small operators (1 to 5 people) of any industry they've ever even dreamed of regulating, what they do is PERSONAL to thousands of people, and directly will impact the lives of hundreds of thousands of other individuals. Living in the isolated and unreal world of Washington DC does that to people. I suggest you pass this on to the FCC and FBI, along with my estimation that at least 20% of all small operators will do exactly the same. I am SICK AND TIRED of being fed to the wolves without the slightest resistance. You, of all people, should know what it means to be a small, one or two man operation living out in the hinterland, where the rubber meets the road. There will be small and casual networks, small community and free networks, small joint efforts by a few people to get for themselves what they have a right to get. All possibly being wiped out by careless and overreaching federal agencies. Who's gonna stick up for them? WISPA's just bleating and going along like blind sheep. I STILL cannot believe we're walking into this without a single official objection from WISPA or the other organizations supposedly on our side. I guess I should not be surprised. Expedience has become the religion of our times. Like rolling over and playing dead is going to earn us brownie points and favors later? Don't count on it. Will I help law enforcement track down and prosecute people who are breaking the law or otherwise a threat? No question at all, of COURSE I WILL. I will NOT pre-tap thier connection in any way that compromises my security or their security, costs me significantly, or is in my view, unconstitutional (which is pretty much anyting done ahead of time). That, as a citizen, is my duty. If that costs me my future and business, it's a small price to pay for what people have given their lives before me to preserve. If I can preserve that for a few people for while... I WILL DO IT. Damn, people, STAND UP FOR ONCE. mark at neofast dot net neofast, Inc, wireless internet 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/
Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 13:36:20 -0800, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote Sigh. First, the mission statement for WISPA, just so's we're all on the same page about motivations: Wireless Internet Service Providers Association is dedicated to promoting and improving the WISP industry. Second, if you don't like it, join us in our efforts at the regulatory level. Sitting out there whining and tossing FUD around does nothing but waste our time and keep you from doing installations so that you can get more than $100 in the bank. With $100 in the bank, you know I can't. Third, WE don't REALLY know EXACTLY what WE have to do. That's part of what the FBI meeting is about. It's not about kowtowing to the FBI, DOJ, FCC etc. It's about making sure that WE can tell YOU what is going to keep your tit out of the ringer with those people. It's also about working with them to make sure that they don't expect things that are unreasonable or pass new regs that have no regard for the realities of our industry niche. I applaud your optimism. I don't share it, but at least you go hopeful that things work well, and that's a good thing, I think. Fourth, certainly I know I'm not speaking for all WISPs. I'm speaking for WISPA. YOU get to choose whether or not you wish to agree. You can always file a statement saying you don't agree and why. The FCC loves to hear from us. Last I knew the IEEE never asked for my opinion on a standard they put in place, but I use them all day every day anyhow. Of course. But.. sadly not the same. A LOT of WISPA members filed that they intended to use whatever standard was developed - that's what Twomey's filing stated. I have a terrible problem with putting on paper I'm going to do something when I have not a clue what that will be. Sixth, don't be an ass. We're putting in our own time and usually our own money to help make this entire industry better. I don't care to be insulted for the privilege of taking away from my customers and my family. I didn't write anything to you that I thought could be even be misconstrued as an insult to you. You know me well enough to know I don't do that. I just wanted you to understand just how some of us who CANNOT go react to these things, and if you find that relevant moment, to pass it on. Seventh, I don't disagree with that you've said. I also think that the seatbelt laws are so much BS. But I've paid enough tickets for not wearing one that I have given in and wear mine now. I always have worn mine. But I don't think it should be law. I think the law is wrong and intrusive. I didn't need the law to wear it, and the law didn't change a thing in my mind. In the mean time, one of these days I'm gonna run for Congress and I'll work to restore individual rights and responsibility. Till then I'll do the best I can to vote for people that respect my ability to lead my own life and my own choices. I'll also follow their dumb a$$ed rules so that I don't go broke paying tickets or end up in jail over it. And here's your chance to pass on just what people think directly to those who write this stuff... and doesn't even come from you personally, making it NOT personal. Eighth, some of the things that you say people don't have to do, the lawyers constantly say that we do. Sorry, but I'm gonna put my weight on their interpretations of the rules than yours. Let's not get sidetracked, Marlon. You have both an opportunity, and will bear the weight of the responsibility, of what happens, at least in some people's minds - be it good or bad. I'm realistic enough to know that what the future brings is not REALLY in your hands, but I do hope you have some influence. Not a lot of people will step up and take that on. If I didn't tell you what I thought, and give you the opportunity to represent that, SHOULD IT BE RELEVANT to your mission, then that's my fault. I said before, I don't have to lecture you, you've been where I am, you know it as well as the back of your hand. I wish you luck. For all our sakes. 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/
Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:44:56 +, Ron Wallace wrote I'm with you Marlon. I support your position. However, if I am all the support you have you better use a cane. Ron Wallace I dunno if you've met Marlon, but he's got pretty decent legs of his own... he'll be alright :) 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/
[WISPA] Was CALEA, WAY off topic video and commentary.
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 14:05:35 -0800, Patrick Leary wrote Sigh. This thread and sparring going at the isp-wireless list on a similar thread shows just how difficult it can be for small WISPs to agree on any one issue, much less all UL wireless broadband providers across all provider segments. Even the personally-funded best of intentions (e.g. Marlon's nine years of efforts), bring rants and rages. Now imagine the no-win situation the FCC faces in trying to keep WISPs even moderately contented. Keep us contented? Ummm... That's easy. One statement to Congress, the DOJ, and the FBI. Information technology innovation and divergence has resulted in such a massive diversity of technological and physical means of delivering broadband, we believe it is impossible to uniformly intercept internet content, track users, and regulate connectivity methodology without severe disruption to our most vibrant industry. There, problem solved. Besides, CALEA never applied to ISP's anyway, so ruled the FCC, before it did a double take and now tries to hold two conflicting positions before regulators, concerning ISP's. We are, or are not, depending on the issue, a regulated industry now, with nary a logical justification for this obviously inconsistent ruling. They created this mess all on their own, and some really NASTY cat-herding efforts might cause them to re-think things in the first place, and go back to their original, supportable and consistent position that we are NOT telecommunications. As I say, it's like herding cats during a lightning storm. But I do so love this business -- never a dull moment! Patrick Leary Alright, you forced it. (snicker) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6572941025419743765 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/
Re: [WISPA] Place to purchase routers in quanity
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 16:25:06 -0700, Andrew Niemantsverdriet wrote Do you want wireless routers? http://3btech.net/chwl80wirofo.html I have been installing these galore, they're FCC certified, and for a cheap consumer router, have the quick setup, and nice set of access control features that work real well for a customer side install. If for some reason the link doesn't work, the part number is wlb-2203. Tehy're 802.11b only, but that's sufficient for internet use. Range is excellent, and I've had no failures yet, no lockups and no crashes that I know of. And at $18 each including shipping, they beat linkcrap and netcrap completely. I've had more issues with failing netgears and buggy linksys than with ANYTHING else. I am needing to order some customer routers in quanity. I have been using the linksys wrt54gc and really like them. Do you guys have suggestions of vendors to use? Thanks, _ /-\ ndrew -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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/
Re: [WISPA] Place to purchase routers in quanity
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:19:23 -0700, Andrew Niemantsverdriet wrote I have around a half dozen in place, and recently bought a dozen. Doesn't even come with an ethernet cable nor printed manual, but they seem to work just fine. those will do nicely! I order a few of them to try out before I put in a big order thanks! On 3/7/07, wispa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 16:25:06 -0700, Andrew Niemantsverdriet wrote Do you want wireless routers? http://3btech.net/chwl80wirofo.html I have been installing these galore, they're FCC certified, and for a cheap consumer router, have the quick setup, and nice set of access control features that work real well for a customer side install. If for some reason the link doesn't work, the part number is wlb-2203. Tehy're 802.11b only, but that's sufficient for internet use. Range is excellent, and I've had no failures yet, no lockups and no crashes that I know of. And at $18 each including shipping, they beat linkcrap and netcrap completely. I've had more issues with failing netgears and buggy linksys than with ANYTHING else. I am needing to order some customer routers in quanity. I have been using the linksys wrt54gc and really like them. Do you guys have suggestions of vendors to use? Thanks, _ /-\ ndrew -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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/
RE: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 21:18:11 -0500, Rick Harnish wrote Yeah but Mac, we shore do enjoy dat weeziana drawl. You have a special way with words that few can match, not even JohnnyO. :P what a kidder. Mac has never had a PC thought in his life, I'm sure :) Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 7:02 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi Thank you Marlon! I can now delete my saved response that I had composed earlier and was contemplating sending. Anyone can respond better than I as I seem to have trouble portraying what I am thinking in a really politically correct fashion. It is one of my biggest faults. (other than 12 others that come to mind real fast) Mac 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/
Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi
, nor have I played one on Television, but I think I have a fairly firm grip on reality. (Why is there Air?) grin I think we should be looking hard at what our older-bigger cousins in the ISP industry are doing and be prepared to join in with them for injunctive relief - IF we are asked to SPEND anything preemptively to serve the cause of law enforcement. We are NOT Monopoly Tel-Co s. Law Enforcement Agencies are in-fact the ones with the guns and badges, not us. I didn't run for Sheriff, I was not elected to the office, I have taken no oath of office. I am therefore NOT a law enforcement officer, entitled to monetary compensation. I WILL IN NO WAY IMPED the work of Law Enforcement but I cannot LEGALLY be compelled to do it FOR them at my own expense. Who of us have enough money to hire the lawyers to fight the federal government? Please Notice I am NOT discussing the value or virtue of the law enforcement activities - That's politics, and has nothing to do with the LAW or it's execution. So what the heck is my point? I Honestly believe, IF some Policy is promulgated that costs US money or time (which IS WORTH money) to do THEIR work, it WILL be held unlawful on several grounds. I THINK that supporting EFF or others that share our concerns and raising these points to them may put this dragon in a cage. I feel certain that the BIG KIDs are thinking this way. I think we should too. That, and thirty nickels will buy you a cup of coffee. Dave Brenton Interesting thinking, Dave. Glad you took the time to write it down clearly and carefully. Let's hope people are reading. 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/
Re: [WISPA] Place to purchase routers in quanity
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:48:53 -0700, Travis Johnson wrote Hi, I just ordered one to try... can you tell me if there is remote management options like with the Linksys routers and what port it runs on and if it can be changed? Travis Microserv I'm pretty sure they do. It's been a while since I looked at that, and my customers are all behind NAT, so I can't reach the routers. 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/
Re: [WISPA] 3650, ok, so what's current status?
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 18:40:33 -0500, John Valenti wrote Jack Patrick: thanks for all the info on 3650 status. This type of response is why I'm on this mailing list. That March 10, 2005 announcement is near-and-dear to me, since that is what started me on the WISP path. I haven't closely followed the progress on 3650, so when I saw the XR3 info I thought it might be happening soon. Those thoughts were pushed along further when I saw the Part-15 org people selling a help get licensed on 3650 manual -- their webpage doesn't indicate to me that it is still experimental. http://www.part-15.org/sales/3650manual.asp Sounds like I should plan testing under my ham license (~3400MHz) rather than clogging up the FCC with a bogus STA application. My interest is propagation thru our Michigan foliage, so I would want to test this summer. But maybe someone could just tell me what to expect - should it be similar to 2.4GHz? You gotta learn to read carefully. Part-15's site says that Part 15 AND REDLINE and part-90 (defunct) are teaming up to create a manual to teach WISP's everything they need to know in order to get licensed for 3650. I dunno if you're aware of it or not, but REdline already has P2P and P2MP equipment that is 3650 capable. With this slant - Redline being a sponsor, that is - it casts a whole new light on the notion of who is teaching what about what. I suspect it has something to do with teaching licensing procedures and protocol, and about the use of Redline's equipment. Perhaps Redline is doing some kind of cooperative effort for testing 3650 equipment. -John (kd8bqx) PS - any chance I could convince folks to trim their responses? I read this list in digest mode, 80% of the digest is noise. :-) 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/
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality - a somewhat different take
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 10:52:54 -0500, Tim Wolfe wrote After reading this, it becomes very obvious this person does not have a clue? (Or should I say, he is owned by the telcos?) Now, let's not fall into this trap, of saying that everyone who doesn't advocate NN in any and every form is owned by the telcos. That's a complete disservice to the debate and to yourself. He's right in this regard... IT IS NOT PRESENTLY A PROBLEM. Nobody that I know of right now is pre-censoring sites (unless the customer wants it done), or content. Some providers don't offer VOIP support. I don't particularly, either, as my network isn't optimized by any QOS implementation. However, what he's warning us about, is that in the political world of DC, he thinks that the people in charge will use NN laws as a way to manage political speech. Free speech advocates are already quite upset about the FEC's demands that sites censor forums and articles during election season to avoid compaign reform law entanglements. In today's political climate, and the naked untruths that flow routinely out of swamp on the Potomac, I, too, don't have any trust in regulators to not encroach on our most fundamental freedoms. If, tomorrow, Qwest or Charter decided to definitely become non-neutral in regards to who and what people did... I don't think the sky would fall. On the contrary, I could raise my rates and get a whole new market. As to whether the users of Qwest or Charter, or Neofast, Inc, have a REAL right to every site, service, or use possible, that should depend on the agreement I make with my customers, should it not? I've been tempted to offer a web only service, appropriately priced, that blocks EVERYTHING but http and dns. Would that be legal under NN laws? If the answer is No, then perhaps we should rethink what we really want. I say that a lack of neutrality by other providers is opportunity for me, not a negative. And that as much as a subscription to your local newspaper doesn't give you the right have every news story, columnist, and cartoon delivered to your door, nor does subscribing to a tiered internet service. What do you think? 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/
Re: Vonage Was Re: [WISPA] CALEA opinion... it's nice to know
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 19:01:16 +, John J. Thomas wrote Gee, has this ever happened to someone on a cell phone? I have dialed 911 and had the call dropped. I guess I should sue the cell phone company and lobby Congress to ensure 911 calls cannot be dropped. Or maybe that's patently absurd. 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/
[WISPA] Is anyone thinking about 17 and 60 ghz?
In the search for the bigger last mile pipe, there's unlicensed at both 17 and 60 ghz. I'm not sure if the consumer electronics industry is up for working at 60 ghz, but what about 17 ghz? Google gets me a lot of theoretical work at both, and engineering discussions of both, but nothing that looks like something otehr than talkware. 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/
[WISPA] Ok, so, unique commentary on WISP business.
http://alwayson.goingon.com/permalink/post/10548 The guy thinks that Clearwire will do well becuase they do NOT bundle. I have no personal experience, but from my area, the service is more costly than mine and performs poorly - or so says the few people who claim to know someone who uses or were going to use it. Interesting take, too. Not bundling gives us a clear advantage in the niche market. h. 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/
Re: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history....
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 00:04:51 -0800, George Rogato wrote wispa wrote: So, who set the standard for toilet paper roll size? Actually Mark, as far as I can tell there is a standard for toilet paper rolls But you can buy TP in a wide variety of sizes, density, etc. Same for paper towel rolls and even paper 8.5 x 11 Kind of makes it easy to use in printers from all manufacturers. You asked :) paper is also available in a wide array of things OTHER than those standards. Those standards are not set and mandated to be used by some regulatory agency. Heck, Avery set standards for stickers, and guess what... most people follow them. But some don't. I can still get stickers in the size I want, though :) -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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/
Re: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history....
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:39:06 -0500, Carl A jeptha wrote Now I have to ask seeing that we are talking about rear-ends, isn't that paper for the printer a little tough on the behind, not a place to have a paper-cut you know. You have a Good Day now, Carl A Jeptha http://www.airnet.ca Office Phone: 905 349-2084 Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm skype cajeptha I almost had to send you the bill for cleaning my breakfast off the LCD monitor Good one, Carl... heh. 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/
Re: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history....
boring others maybe we should continue any follow-up off-line. Actually, at this point in our industry, I think this is a good debate to have. You long for the one-fits-all approach and want to be that one. I absolutely refuse to follow anyone else. I'm going to do my own thing, and I admire those who try new and different. If there was only one type of wireless gear, what room is there for the little guy? None. The people with the deepest pockets will own it all, because there's no significant advantage other than size and financing. You point out that when cut loose from the position of a monopoly, many American businesses were unprepared to compete in the open market of concepts and ideas and had little appetite for making the next big leap. But we'll win that. Living in a harsh world makes us stronger. Frankly, I don't want to pay the price of a cell phone mass produced here. It's a commodity. But I would bet that, like WCDMA, the better ideas come from here. And I'm willing to bet that the NEXT real jump in technology comes from here, too. And that some single cellular provider here... will pioneer it first. And eventually, the rest of the world will follow. Or maybe not. But here is where opportunity lies. Not there. Here, where opportunity is open. I think this is why there's a WISP industry at all. Because the standards types can't think that far out of the box. Someday, I predict, the big boys will come to our way of thinking. But we'll already be on to the next wave, the next horizon, the next challenge. I think we, as a loosely associated industry, should not be seeking 'standards' and sameness, but instead, should already be looking that next big leap. That next mountain to climb, that next chasm to leap. I know personally, I'm already thinking beyond wireless internet. What next? What unknown can I think up, and dive into? That's where we should all be. 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/
[WISPA] Net Neutrality - a somewhat different take
You can take his views however you wish... But NN legislation is probably on the way, and this could get real ugly...REAL ugly real fast. When DC takes on a problem, whether or not it really exists, it turns political instantly, and we could be the ones that get whipsawed. http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070228-075046-2287r.htm 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/
Re: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history....
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:14:25 -0600, John Scrivner wrote Brilliant - standards building as a means of disabling US access to technology innovation. Wow. I certainly hope you have vision enough to see and thwart this type of activity in the future. I have heard you have the intellectual knowledge to do so. Please let us know when to cry foul in the future. Scriv I'm not sure Rich is right or wrong about the how or why, that u-pcs has flopped here. In fact, as much as I read, I could find little to indicate that industry made much of any input into the standards. They are quite general with only certain minimums and maximums built into them. I believe that 802.11(anything) may actually qualify. Northern Telecom (nortel) was the first to build a u-pcs system, but it was a business class phone system - handsets, pbx, all wireless, designed for businesses. Today I can find no nortel products built for the u-pcs spectrum. As for regulations including small or obscure incompatibilities to prevent the use of one mass produced device in another area, it happens all the time. Witness the FCC's unique connector rule. I'd like to think the FCC has stoppped trying to predict or create thier own vision of technological future, and just respond to the market, instead, but I don't really know if that's true or not. 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/
[WISPA] 3650, ok, so what's current status?
I spent some time reading the latest R O about the 3650 spectrum, which is dated back in 2005. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-56A1.pdf I am, however, unable to understand what the present status is. Does anyone have that information? What's going on...or not going on? 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/
[WISPA] CALEA opinion... it's nice to know
That at least SOME people agree with me. http://blogs.globalcrossing.com/regulatory?from=50 The second entry on that page is very interesting. While this entry is a bit out of date, he makes a very interesting point... That the feds are trying to figure out how to mandate the costs of whatever they want on industry... Very much akin to requiring every home to be built with peepholes, and platforms at our windows, so they look in on us without difficulty. Maybe even requiring remote control drapes? Yeah, yeah, I know, you have to be a political radical to NOT want that built into all our homes... but, he has a point. 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/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA opinion... it's nice to know
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:03:58 -0800, George Rogato wrote Not to change the subject, but on that page, I fund this a lot more disturbing.. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/03/vonage_fire.html Dang! Let's just outlaw VOIP! Problem solved. 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/
Re: [WISPA] 3650, ok, so what's current status?
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:30:38 -0500, Tom DeReggi wrote 3650 is complicated. Last month's FCC visit stated that they are getting close, and expect answers by Fall :-( Experimental licenses are available, allthough, would likely result in removing gear in a year. Can you point to any info on getting one? I'm hoping personally, that they rule to keep it 100% unlicensed (actually registered / Non-exclusive Free licensing, being almost the same as unlicensed) , 100% in tact, but get rid of contention based. My personal belief is that the delay of 3650 will have helped small WISPs. The reason is that Licensed 3650 in other countries has allowed Manufacturers to start scaling their production and doingtheir research. At the same time it kept Capitol rich US telecom out of the WISP business, while WISPs could take the time to get stronger and larger. Its possible that if they remove contention based, in a year WISPs would have virgin spectrum with LOW DOLLAR WiMax gear that they can afford by teh time the spectrum is usable. If it's left in, we can use variants of 802.11 gear NOW, and for relatively cheap, as well. Heck, whether it's in or out, it appears to be workable. Frankly, I could use it now. I have no issues with distance and eirp for 2.4 or 5.8 as it stands. I mean, I can find ways of dealing with those limitations. I can't deal with the interference nearly as well. I found both UDC's and antennas that could be built to comply for 3650 NOW, and the idea of some interference free backhauls certainly sounds good. Being required to pull them in a year or two doesn't sound catastrophic to me. But Telecoms would still ahve the uncertainty of Unlicensed, detering its use by large scale telecoms. The word is that WiMax does not work in non-Licensed, but as we know, allthough WiMax will undisputedly perform better in Licensed, it will perform JUST AS GOOD as our current legacy TDD gear (such as Trango and Motorola). However, if they insist on keeping Contention based, I personally do not think a manaufacturer will ever make gear to use the spectrum. It would be nice if 802.16H or equivellent succeeded in stepping up to the table (contention based WiMax), but personally I don;t think it will happen in our Small WISP lifetime (meaning before WISPs sell to RollUps :-). Although WISPA's position was to support Contention BAsed, and it was the right thing to do at the time, I beleive that will ahve to be compromised in order to get use of the spectrum. Just because I think so many manufacturers are fighting it. Its the near license Free model that is essential and can't be compromised. My view on this is because 5.8G equivellent spectrum is what is so scarce, and none of the allocations given to use allowed equivellent power, we need the 3650 power, bad. I read the last R O quite extensively and decided that there's no real great advantage to 3650. You can use 25 W ERP, but only if you use a 25 mhz wide channel. The narrower the channel, the lower the erp limits. Exactly how this plays out Thus, using narrower slices of the spectrum is not encouraged. One other apparently odd deficiency is that there's no ERP distinction between P2P and P2MP. You can use an omni at both ends of a P2P link without penalty, nor is there anything to encourage cleaner P2P use like the ISM 2.4 and 5.8 rules. Personally, I think the FCC is holding out, trying to force manufacturers to innovate and embrace the ideas of contention based. They are waiting for a manufacturer to show them it CAN and WILL be done, if they hold firm on the original rules. But if Manufacturers don;t cooperate and make something that can pass the requirement, teh FCC will effectively be squatting on the spectrum, and will probably give up on their ideals, and get pressure to find a way to make the spectrum usable. But that is just my personal feelings, and in no way a representation or confirmation of what the FCC feels. They are prety much at a no comment stage, lsitening to all the arguements and watching how things evolve. Without rules to go by, I don't see ANYONE putting money into it. Any idea what kind of rules for what equipment is allowed? What kind of certifications mechanism? They hinted at use any antenna rules, which is fine, but if we're stuck with a part-15 type of whole assembly certification, we're going back to the must buy only the big boy's solutions which...may never exist, as you say. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: wispa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 4:29 AM Subject: [WISPA] 3650, ok, so what's current status? I spent some time reading the latest R O about the 3650 spectrum, which is dated back in 2005. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov
Re: NOW: 911 Services for VoIP WAS: [WISPA] CALEA opinion... it's nice to know
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:39:32 -0800, Jack Unger wrote For those of us who live in the hinterland... Most rural people do not have free fire departments. Here, if you live outside the city limits and do not pay the fire department fees, they WILL NOT come and put your house or shop or fields or anything else out. But to directly address that idea... For the most part, RFD response is long enough that whether you call them or not, the damage is usually the same. They're pretty good at preventing the spread of a fire, not in rapid response and saving a home that just caught fire. I would have NOT wanted to be the person who put the guy on hold. That would haunt me until death or senility took away my mind. Call on your VOIP phone because the house caught fire? Why not just email the fire department? Gee, I'm sorry, but what on earth was he thinking? 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/
Re: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history....
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:56:40 -0600, Rich Comroe wrote Scriv- Mark- IMO the FCC has certainly been just responding to the market over the last 15yrs (as you advocate). Actually, I disagree. I think the FCC was attempting to create a market on their own. Cellular type service flourished. The envisioned unlicensed PCS was a flop. I'm not going to profess to have the definitive answer as to why, my view of the topic is totally WISP centric, I don't really CARE about spectrum reserved for devices that can't reach more than a couple hundred feet at absolute best. I just think that we might gain some understanding of what's going on if we look at a current flop and success. I'm not really sure the FCC is responding to the market, either. I think it responds to what those who can influence it say, and the motives for what anyone says to it are never totally selfless altruism. We want 3650 for our enrichment. But with that enrichment comes competitive services that benefit our customers. One wit once said that democratic self governance is the worst form of governance, save all the rest, and many other parallels have been drawn by wiser folks than me. I'd restate it to say that free enterprise is the worst form of delivering necessities... except for any other form that's been invented so far. So while it's easy to knock and criticise the jumble we call our cellular and internet providing system, there's simply not a real better alternative. Over this period I think I've become more and more against this as I assess how this has left the US and our airways. In my opinion it's a BAD thing when I'm standing under a cell tower that cannot service my phone even though it's the same frequency. I could not disagree more. There's nothing more frustrating than being stuck with a one technology must fit and serve for all set of rules. I LEFT a GSM company due to the decidedly inferior service it provides, to go to one that runs a CDMA network on a lower frequency, because it's decidedly better. We all benefit from that kind of capability and freedom. In Europe all towers are mandated compatible as was PREVIOUSLY true in the US (while the EC still regulates European airways for what's best for their people). The US airway have become a free-for-all of non-compatible technologies, with destructive consequences for US manufacturers, operators, and the public in general. I have no such emotions. LEt them (europe) have the sucky GSM system. Let providers use whatever they want, and let the best one win. When I worked for a manufacturer I voted what management judged was best for that manufacturer. However, I'm now retired, and I've become a vocal advocate that the FCC should resume the role it once held as oversee-er to (at minimum) insure that all deployed equipment plays nice (if not compatibly). I'm disappointed that FCC rules for unlicensed outdoor (all bands) never mandated a minimum set of play-nice media access rules (not to say I didn't cheerfully participate in a proprietary MAC product when I worked for one manufacturer ... but I think I've seen the error of those ways). Well, you and I disagree. To follow your thoughts, WISP's would all be required to use the same technology, so we have interoperability between us. Bahhh, forget that noise. The classic argument against this is that it inhibits innovation. Not true IMHO. Just look at the 2.4GHz IEEE standards. An organized standards body can, and does evolve standards (802.11b - 802.11g) such that it is COORDINATED. It's simply not true that standards lock you into obsolete technology. No, standards do not. They come and go. Forcing the USE of specific ones is always a negative, when it comes to letting someone invent and sell a better mousetrap. I think the FCC relinquished its responsibility during the 2nd generation cellular licensing process where they became infatuated with how much the auctions could net monetarily ... if they simply allowed the winner to deploy whatever technology they felt like. The airways belong to the American people. It's my government, and I wished they acted in my best interests ... and not as a revenue generator for the federal budget. I, for one, happen to think they DID do the right thing. Thankfully, I'm not stuck with GSM garbage and I have a choice to use someone else's better idea for my area. Maybe I'll even find a way to make future 3650 work mobile in my valley and I'll make my own ip phone network for cheap. Or not. But I want the option. That option is essential. 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
Re: [WISPA] 3650, ok, so what's current status?
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 23:51:00 -0600, John Scrivner wrote If that's Twomey's word, then that's better than giving Bullit 200 bucks, or whatever the price of his manual is. I merely wanted to see what backhauls worked like in the absense of noise, but I did want to load them with real life traffic, too. It would be a waste of time and money to build fake traffic for testing. I advise against this as you cannot use it for anything but testing (no commercial use at all). Any other use is against the law. Our WISPA attorney, Kris Twomey, can set you up if you want to run some 3650 tests. It is fairly easy to get an experimental license. It just won't make you a red cent. Scriv 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/
Re: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history....
with inferior coverage (considering the number of total towers providing service), more expensive phones (multi-mode), inferior voice quality (extra voice decoding / recoding becuase they all have incompatible voice codecs), and additional voice latency. Eventually European GSM became yet another US deployed technology adding to the mish-mosh. And? I just don't see a downside that isn't more than offset by opportunity for rapid and mostly unrestrained progress forward. US Standards participants coined the phrase if one standard is good, multiple standards are better. This is non-sense. If there's not a single standard you have no standard. A single standards does not inhibit technology, because standards continuously evolve and eventually extend to new technologies in a compatible, planned way. Just look at 802.11 ... it's a classic example of an evolving standard. Standards do inhibit something ... but it's not technology ... its the choice to deploy whatever you want. It imposes a certain discipline for the general public ... which I think is a good thing. It's disheartening as all hell to look at a field near me with 4 antenna towers (3 of them 500ft) and a different wisp providing service from each (from an interference standpoint). There's roughly 30 different 5.7GHz transmitters all within 1000ft and LOS of each other. There's so many examples like this which simply scream at you that the wisps would collectively have benefitted were some minimum media access procedures common across all these devices. Ahh, but you see chaos and disorder. I see opportunity knocking and excitement. These things are guided by people with brains. Though most of us are pretty darn slow and dimwitted ( aw, heck, even me sometimes ), WE STILL DO USE OUR HEADS or we get out of the business eventually. These things will, because we're capable of reason and thought, eventually sort themselves out. And individuals are ALWAYS more capable than a committee, at using judgement and being more responsive and making decisions and ... well, pretty much better at everything. Which is why a WISP with no money and 4 people can take on the telco and cableco and WIN a share of the market. Which would never happen, if we're all stuck with doing it all the same way. Anyways, I appreciate your thoughts and enjoy comparing differing opinions. peace, Rich It's always interesting... Mark 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/
Re: [WISPA] Some unlicensed history....
with inferior coverage (considering the number of total towers providing service), more expensive phones (multi-mode), inferior voice quality (extra voice decoding / recoding becuase they all have incompatible voice codecs), and additional voice latency. Eventually European GSM became yet another US deployed technology adding to the mish-mosh. And? I just don't see a downside that isn't more than offset by opportunity for rapid and mostly unrestrained progress forward. US Standards participants coined the phrase if one standard is good, multiple standards are better. This is non-sense. If there's not a single standard you have no standard. A single standards does not inhibit technology, because standards continuously evolve and eventually extend to new technologies in a compatible, planned way. Just look at 802.11 ... it's a classic example of an evolving standard. Standards do inhibit something ... but it's not technology ... its the choice to deploy whatever you want. It imposes a certain discipline for the general public ... which I think is a good thing. It's disheartening as all hell to look at a field near me with 4 antenna towers (3 of them 500ft) and a different wisp providing service from each (from an interference standpoint). There's roughly 30 different 5.7GHz transmitters all within 1000ft and LOS of each other. There's so many examples like this which simply scream at you that the wisps would collectively have benefitted were some minimum media access procedures common across all these devices. Ahh, but you see chaos and disorder. I see opportunity knocking and excitement. These things are guided by people with brains. Though most of us are pretty darn slow and dimwitted ( aw, heck, even me sometimes ), WE STILL DO USE OUR HEADS or we get out of the business eventually. These things will, because we're capable of reason and thought, eventually sort themselves out. And individuals are ALWAYS more capable than a committee, at using judgement and being more responsive and making decisions and ... well, pretty much better at everything. Which is why a WISP with no money and 4 people can take on the telco and cableco and WIN a share of the market. Which would never happen, if we're all stuck with doing it all the same way. Anyways, I appreciate your thoughts and enjoy comparing differing opinions. peace, Rich It's always interesting... Mark 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/
Re: [WISPA] Makes you feel a bit... errrr.... what's the word?
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:30:10 -0800, Jack Unger wrote Mark, I agree completely with your closing sentiment that Everything we do should be aimed at providing ourselves protection from being wiped out due to pressure from Congress or the Big Boys. I don't however understand your beef with this particular FCC action. It's just about undue influence, Jack. Where's the justice here? What about all the other pirate stations that don't happen to get a Senator to write to the FCC to turn the enforcement / fine into an STA? Aren't some of them valuable to their community too? Mr. Moses was and is now again providing a clear and valuable public service to the community of Goldfield Nevada which (if you've ever been there) is a near ghost-town that's fighting to continue to exist as a community. It seems that Mr. Moses's broadcasting is providing a significant service to the town while harming nobody. Goldfield is located in the desert three hours north of Las Vegas and six hours south of Reno. This is a desolate rural area with little to no local broadcasters so no risk of interference to anyone. Hey, I don't object to the idea of inexpensive ways of building a low-power AM station. Had the Senator gotten a dozen colleagues to say man, this is a great idea, let's make a way for tiny stations to spring up in small and remote communities and enhance their community. I'd be all for promoting a better than part 15 .1w set of regulations to allow 1 or 5 or 10 watt community service stations without delays for application windows and onerous recordkeeping, regulatory burdens, blah, blah. That would be justice. That would find a way to do the good, and make sure EVERYONE benefitted. As it is, one rule breaker gets rewarded, one Senator gets media praise, and everyone else gets... nothing. I'd almost call that business as usual. http://maps.yahoo.com/index.php#q1=goldfield%2C+nv.trf=0mvt=mlon=- 117.240601lat=37.714245mag=11 Mr. Moses is harming no one and he is obviously helping his community. I say (figuratively) more power to him. As to your comment that Senator Reid is corrupt... well I'm not even going to go there. I don't want to start ranting about the very real endemic, destructive political corruption that has been on display in our Nation's Capital recently. To end on a positive note, I'll just repeat that I agree with your ending sentiment that we (WISPs) need to do everything to protect ourselves from being wiped out by the Big Boys. Mr. Moses isn't trying to wipe us out, ATT IS trying and has been doing a very good job of that. Let's keep our eyes on the right ball. Respectfully, jack Jack, I guess I sorta dropped the ball here. I just assumed you'd read the same thing between the lines I did. The sway-ability of the FCC with just ONE letter from ONE Senator is very disconcerting. It did not prompt them to adjust rules and create benefit for all. It just ignored the rules and let someone slide because someone thought it would look good. But what if that letter were something harmful to us, but the reason given was good? Frankly, I trust Congress... the feds in general... about... well... ABSOLUTELY NOT ONE IOTA. Government by nature is adversarial to the welfare of the individual. That's why we had (past tense) such an unusual nation, where a government was forced to get OUT of our business turned the people free and they then built the best danged nation to ever exist. I guess that makes me a radical around here. The people from WISPA who travel to DC and lobby for us... well, they come around promoting we have to be nice to them, so they'll be nice to us. The rest of us out here in the hinterland, the hoi polloi, so to speak, just don't find any sense in trusting our future to the whims in DC. Come on, AT LEAST VOICE OBJECTIONS TO INTRUSIONS. This is our business, people. For many of us, it's our life, our retirement, our bread and butter. And we can't muster the guts to tell some over- reaching regulators they're out of line? Why not? What the bloody heck is political about defending what I've worked for for years now? This is my last chance at a retirement. I'm 44 and haven't got $5 to retire on, I used it to start this business. I'd call objecting to ANY potential threat... Enlightened self interest and I don't understand why WISPA and Part-15, etc, are so danged afraid to even admit there's a threat, much less speak up and defend us at least a tiny bit Even now, the representation they've appeared to have made is that we're totally compliant, unquestioning, and welcoming regulatory mandates. One can hardly wonder why I feel so danged betrayed. I gave WISPA plenty of good money when I hadn't had so much as a single paycheck (I still haven't, but there's light at the end of the tunnel), and couldn't raise money to expand my business
