Re: [WISPA] Water in your radios? Know your IP rating.

2014-11-08 Thread wispa
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

2014-10-23 Thread wispa
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

2014-07-02 Thread wispa
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

2014-07-02 Thread wispa
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

2014-05-08 Thread wispa
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

2014-05-06 Thread wispa
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

2014-05-06 Thread wispa
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

2014-05-06 Thread wispa
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

2014-05-06 Thread wispa
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

2014-05-06 Thread wispa
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

2014-05-06 Thread wispa
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

2014-04-30 Thread wispa
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

2014-04-30 Thread wispa
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

2014-04-08 Thread wispa
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

2014-04-08 Thread wispa
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

2014-04-02 Thread wispa
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

2014-04-02 Thread wispa
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

2014-04-02 Thread wispa
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...

2014-04-01 Thread wispa
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

2014-03-31 Thread wispa
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

2014-03-26 Thread wispa
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

2014-03-26 Thread wispa
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

2014-03-25 Thread wispa
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

2014-03-25 Thread wispa
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

2013-10-09 Thread wispa
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

2013-10-08 Thread wispa
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

2013-07-31 Thread wispa
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

2013-07-30 Thread wispa
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

2013-07-30 Thread wispa
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?

2013-07-25 Thread wispa
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


Re: [WISPA] Do WISPs need a deal with Google?

2013-07-25 Thread wispa
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?

2013-07-16 Thread wispa
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...

2011-11-28 Thread wispa
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...

2011-11-28 Thread wispa
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...

2011-11-28 Thread wispa
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...

2011-11-28 Thread wispa
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

2011-10-18 Thread wispa
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?

2011-05-06 Thread Titan Wireless WISPA Vendor
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

2011-01-31 Thread Titan Wireless WISPA Vendor
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)

2010-11-17 Thread Titan Wireless WISPA Vendor
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

2010-09-29 Thread Titan Wireless WISPA Vendor
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

2010-08-09 Thread Board WISPA
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)

2010-06-09 Thread WISPA


-- 
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

2008-06-13 Thread wispa
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

2008-06-12 Thread WISPA
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?

2007-04-25 Thread wispa
? 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?

2007-04-14 Thread wispa

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

2007-04-08 Thread wispa
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

2007-03-27 Thread wispa
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

2007-03-27 Thread wispa
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

2007-03-27 Thread wispa
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

2007-03-27 Thread wispa
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

2007-03-27 Thread wispa
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

2007-03-27 Thread wispa
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

2007-03-27 Thread wispa
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

2007-03-26 Thread wispa
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.

2007-03-26 Thread wispa
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

2007-03-22 Thread wispa
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

2007-03-14 Thread wispa
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

2007-03-14 Thread wispa
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 ?

2007-03-12 Thread wispa
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 ?

2007-03-12 Thread wispa
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 ?

2007-03-12 Thread wispa
, 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 ?

2007-03-12 Thread wispa
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

2007-03-11 Thread wispa
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

2007-03-09 Thread wispa
, 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

2007-03-09 Thread wispa
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

2007-03-09 Thread wispa
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

2007-03-08 Thread wispa
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

2007-03-08 Thread wispa
 
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

2007-03-08 Thread wispa
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

2007-03-07 Thread wispa
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

2007-03-07 Thread wispa
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

2007-03-07 Thread wispa
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.

2007-03-07 Thread wispa
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

2007-03-07 Thread wispa
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

2007-03-07 Thread wispa
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

2007-03-07 Thread wispa
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

2007-03-07 Thread wispa
, 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

2007-03-07 Thread wispa
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?

2007-03-05 Thread wispa
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

2007-03-04 Thread wispa
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

2007-03-04 Thread wispa
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?

2007-03-04 Thread wispa

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.

2007-03-04 Thread wispa
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....

2007-03-03 Thread wispa
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....

2007-03-03 Thread wispa
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....

2007-03-03 Thread wispa
 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

2007-03-03 Thread wispa

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....

2007-03-02 Thread wispa
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?

2007-03-02 Thread wispa
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] Controlled hot spot suggestions

2007-03-02 Thread wispa
I have been approached by a public library steering committee (they're 
building a whole new library this summer) that wants to implement an 
interesting idea.   Their catalog system will be run by the district, over 
the internet, it's all web-based, so it requires pc's and mobile access just 
to maintain the library, anyway.

And, since they wish to offer internet service as well, and space is at a bit 
of a premium, they want to have loaner laptops for clients to use, and 
wireless inside the building to connect everything.

So, what I'm looking for is a hotspot type of setup, that requires little or 
no technical know-how to run.  The clients need to have a simple, 
automated, sign up for free with user and password web based setup, to 
surf, and retains the ability for the library personnell to identify who is 
logged in and the ability to shut anyone down who abuses the system, etc. 

Frankly, I don't wish to support a complex database driven system, so it 
would be best if it were something a bit more standalone.   Even better if it 
runs on windows, so that there's a single OS on the network. 

Any ideas?

Thanks
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/


[WISPA] CALEA opinion... it's nice to know

2007-03-02 Thread wispa

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

2007-03-02 Thread wispa
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?

2007-03-02 Thread wispa
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

2007-03-02 Thread wispa
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....

2007-03-02 Thread wispa
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] Light hearted Friday

2007-03-02 Thread wispa
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:17:44 -0800, George Rogato wrote
 
 So here is something  to lighten the day:
 
 http://youtube.com/watch?v=0sNE9k8mZ1w
 -- 

It reminds me of some kind of Jeff Foxworthy description of what happens 
after someone says hey, watch this!




 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] 3650, ok, so what's current status?

2007-03-02 Thread wispa
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....

2007-03-02 Thread wispa
 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/


  1   2   >