Right. And my point is, they should be easy to get certified. How do
we get the various SBC vendors we use to get their boards certified as
non-intentional radiators that can hold intentionally radiating modules?
ralph wrote:
Laptop=Legal FCC Certified Computing Device
SBC=not
WRAP=not
Two quick thoughts:
1) If it was so easy to encrypt, more would do so. These things are to
catch the mastermind genius, which thankfully are few and far between,
but to catch the idiots. And most people are surrounded by idiots. Why
even... never mind.
If encryption was easy, PGP would be
About libraries and CALEA:
When the FCC extended CALEA to all facilities-based broadband Internet
access providers in September 2005, it deemed it not to be in the public
interest at that time to extend CALEA to libraries “that acquire
broadband Internet access service from a facilities-based
For your info,
It is very easy to encrypt. there are plenty of easy to use tools for
using impossible to break encryption. if you can use hotmail, you can
use hushmail. The fact is that in my conversation with people I have
discovered that they just don't care to encrypt.. I don't have anything
Scott,
The SBC would not be a transmitter without the mPCI wireless card now
would it. The SBC would be the host device.
Regards,
Dawn DiPietro
Scott Reed wrote:
Right, for the transmitter. That is the mPCI card that goes in the
laptop. I am talking about the laptop itself. Laptop = SBC
All nicely stated.
So, what do you think we should be DOING?
Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
We use a combo of:
Cacti
GroundWork (http://www.groundworkopensource.com/products/)
And [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Justin
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
John,
The FCC should not have to bribe Wireless Providers for this
information. If Wireless Providers are serious about playing in this
field then they should fill out the proper paperwork they are asked to
file. If not then they will have to pay the price of not being looked as
serious
I certainly DO want to mix and match. Hell, it's going on all over
anywhere, they're gonna have to legalize it sooner or later anyway. The mix
and match thing is way beyond anyone's ability to enforce it anymore.
However, it's still the law and shouldn't be done.
This is the specific
We use groundwork also.
On 4/26/07, Justin S. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We use a combo of:
Cacti
GroundWork (http://www.groundworkopensource.com/products/)
And [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Justin
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
Marlon,
What does The professional installation provision of Section 15.203 say?
and how does this change things?
I thought the professional installation only meant that the installer had
the knowledge and was allowed by the FCC to determine what antenna and
xmitter could work together
Jory Privett wrote:
I am looking some a software package that does network monitoring and
graphing.
WhatsUp will do the monitoring and notifications, but at least the
version I've got doesn't do graphing. (In all fairness, it's an older
version, and MRTG does graphing just fine.)
Nagios works,
- Original Message -
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
This new ruling is clearly aimed at the Dells, HPs, Toshibas etc. of the
world. Not at us. If you can find a source at the FCC that'll say
otherwise I'd LOVE to hear from them. 90% of the networks out there have
changed
BTW, I never said not to fight it.
I think that a majority of people want to comply and that should be the
short term aim.
Fighting it should have been done earlier, but can certainly be done now
(or after May 14). It will just be harder.
I would suggest those that want to fight should
I saw nothing about an N connector being disallowed. It simply says
that the connector(s) must be unique, and my contention is that an N
connector is just as unique as a U.FL or RP-SMA. Once something
becomes an Industry Standard it sort of loses its uniqueness.
Since every system must have an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another two cents that may or may not be worth ANYTHING at all.
Hi, Mark's sock puppet who writes like Tim May.
Members really perceive it will foster increased
national security.
Anyone who believes that is, at best, delusional.
I assume most of
Actually, the SBC is never an intentional radiator. The added card is.
As I read, and Tim says the same thing in a later post, we need the SBCs
certified the same as laptops. Certified as non-intentional radiators
that accept intential radiators that are certified.
Isn't that what the
- Original Message -
From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another two cents that may or may not be worth ANYTHING at all.
Hi, Mark's sock
Scott,
The wireless card and antenna has to be present to be certified with the
SBC. Without the card and the antenna the SBC cannot be certified as a
system.
If we would get an SBC certified bare as a base unit then we could
use it with various cards in whatever enclosure we want to use.
On 4/19/07, Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
as Patrick Henry once said
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
Who is Patrick Henry??
/end sarcasm
Seriously tho, I do not remember that being a quote from him but from
Patrick Stewart. I happen to like:
The liberties of a people
- Original Message -
From: Scott Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s
Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval
Actually, the SBC is
I'm a bit confused, because I thougth the FCC specifically stated that there
is no longer any funds, nor are any applications under those sections
accepted anymore.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.pdf
Relevant paragraph:
2. More generally, we herein specify
On one of the documents that I've rad that maybe is not that public,
they have taken into consideration that some isp's can not afford to
impliment calea and they have a solution for that.
Dawn DiPietro wrote:
Peter,
Thank you for posting this information. Since there is a $5000
Mr. Koskenmaki,
I am sorry to see that you felt a flame was directed upon you.
Personally, I take the reference to Tim May as an undeserved
complement. But Tim's works do pre-date a lot of the younger crowd.
BTW, Tim's manifesto is well worthy of the few minutes of time it
will take anyone
- Original Message -
From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Costs-Shifting Relief
On one of the documents that I've rad that maybe is not that public,
they have taken into
There are several WISP in my area I was wanting to talk to some of them
about bandwidth peering. I know that most will not want anything to do with
it since they refuse to co-operate in any other way but I wanted to make the
effort. Has anyone else done this type of thing? What paperwork
I think Steve's point was to contrast Patrick Henry's determination with
some people's attitude that resistance is futile.
Frankly, I think EVERY WISP should file that they are NOT compliant and have
no prospect of being. The FCC would simply be snowed under attempting to
deal with HUNDREDS OR
David E. Smith wrote:
Jory Privett wrote:
I am looking some a software package that does network monitoring and
graphing.
WhatsUp will do the monitoring and notifications, but at least the
version I've got doesn't do graphing. (In all fairness, it's an older
version, and MRTG does
Precisely.. Misquote was intentional.;) Patrick Henry never would
have said such diabolical words. Just wanted to get the gears turning
for those who remember what Patrick /really/ said!
--
Jeromie Reeves wrote:
On 4/26/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeromie Reeves wrote:
On
Mark,
At this point you are beating a dead horse. We know how you feel about
the government and following the laws put in place for your protection.
But to be honest with you this is getting old.
We need to change the focus of this conversation on how to comply with
these rules not how much
Jory,
I am not sure what you are trying to do with the other WISP's in your
area. Can you a little more clear on what you are thinking of?
Regards,
Dawn DiPietro
Jory Privett wrote:
There are several WISP in my area I was wanting to talk to some of
them about bandwidth peering. I know
We primarily use:
Whats Up Gold Premium v11
Solarwinds Orion
Cacti
Visualpulse
For anyone who is looking at monitoring infrastructure and their individual
customers, I would strongly suggest taking a look at AdRem NetCrunch.
The new version (v11) of WhatsUp Gold has really come around, it's
It's more likely that you would get 100 maximum to say I can't comply,
since most won't want to make themselves known.
And those 100 would be contacted.
Cripes only a few hundred filled out the 477... you think a few thousand
would light a bonfire?
Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
I think Steve's
Mr. Hush,
Excellent plan. What agenda item will you be working on first?
SUGGESTIONS of what to do:
1) Inform the AP / UPI that as an industry group, we have decided
to stage a cyclic disconnect from public Inet in protest.
Any volunteers to write and distribute this Press Release?
2) As a
I last asked a couple years ago. What does everyone recommend for sources of
outdoor rated non-burial cable for installations?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
You would classically arrange a peering agreement. You hand each other
a equal amount of capacity (say 1mbit) and a BGP table. You each use
the link like another upstream provider, balancing routes vs capacity
vs (what ever else you want). Some peerages have a set cost per bit
transfered and the
My personal concern would be turning over my IP block to my competition.
They would have to have enough control to allow BGP routes from their
upstream. Technically they could misconfigure a router accidentally and
take your entire network down. :(
Travis
Microserv
Mike Hammett wrote:
If
Steve, well you did get me thinking about him (and my best remembered
quote from him).
On 4/26/07, Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's more likely that you would get 100 maximum to say I can't comply,
since most won't want to make themselves known.
And those 100 would be contacted.
Cripes
Is the issue one of cost where the WISP A does not
have budget for additonal servers/network analytics
tools, hardware infrastructure? What problem are you
trying to solve?
Felix
--- Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You would classically arrange a peering agreement.
You hand each
There are many issues involved... we used to peer with one of our
competitors in the area. It worked pretty well, but honestly wasn't
worth the extra time and efforts for what it actually saved in
bandwidth, etc.
Now, if you could find a neutral location to bring in a bigger pipe, and
then
I get mine from either ElectroComm or Wisp-Router for about $100/1000'.
The biggest problem I have had for the past 12-18 months is finding
people with stuff in stock when I need it.
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
Mike Hammett wrote:
I last asked a couple years ago. What does
Wow. I guess the title really is right.
When I participated in the debates about who was a WISP, and who could join
WISPA, we were very broad, and included community networks, free networks,
big and small operators.. including the guy who is just a hobby type
network operator, but provides
At one time, a local operator here in the valley tried to set this up, not
with BGP and classic peering, but simple static routing to route just that
ISP's clients traffic to them.Thus, traffic bound for each other went
through a dedicated pipe. of course, this was simple and cheap, back
This is exactly what we have done. We brought two DS3's out to a rural area
and have broken off parts of that bandwidth to other ISPs. In fact as I
type we have failed over part of one ISP's network over a geographically
diverse third backhaul we have back into town.
I believe we extended an
I may not agree with everything Mark is saying, but CALEA is more about
Gov't control and convenience than our protection. Running a small
business is hard enough without being regulated into oblivion.
Mark McElvy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
- Original Message -
From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Lemmings - suggestions
Mr. Hush,
Excellent plan. What agenda item will you be working on first?
SUGGESTIONS of what to do:
Here, read this. it's old, but it's EFF's take on CALEA.
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/CALEA/
If you take the time and read this through (it's HOURS)
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-56A1.pdf
You'll notice that the FCC readily admits it cannot resolve the
Mark,
So this means you thumb your nose at the FCC when they put regulations
into place?
The FCC is not in place to make life easy for you it is there to protect
the airwaves from being polluted from every guy that knows something
about wireless and slapping computers together.
Sorry if
Mark,
Justify it anyway you like. Civil disobedience is not a viable solution.
I don't see a large number of people stepping up to the plate and
defending your position.
Regards,
Dawn DiPietro
Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
Wow. I guess the title really is right.
When I participated in the
- Original Message -
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS?
Mark,
So this means you thumb your nose at the FCC when they put regulations
into place?
No, it means I thumb
I run PRTG Traffic Grapher from Paessler (www.paessler.com) and Servers
Alive (www.woodstone.nu/salive/) for notification. They both do
notification but I started with Servers Alive because it's freeware and it
works.
Jim Stout
LTO Communications, LLC
15701 Henry Andrews Dr
Pleasant Hill, MO
- Original Message -
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Was lemmings... now What is WISPA?
Mark,
Justify it anyway you like. Civil disobedience is not a viable solution.
I don't
Peering Point?
Bandwidth would decrease if a good percentage of the traffic was to each
other.
Otherwise it is just a routing nightmare.
- Peter
Jory Privett wrote:
I have two PoPs where I have bandwidth for my network. In the same
area I know of at least 4 other WISPs that have
Peter R. wrote:
Mr. Hush,
Excellent plan. What agenda item will you be working on first?
SUGGESTIONS of what to do:
we have decided to
stage a cyclic disconnect from public Inet in protest.
I'm confused... Is he saying to turn the internet off for his customers?
Is this supposed to have
http://www.crblaw.com/news/201369_1kc-5-18-06.pdf
(forwarded from Bearhill)
--
Regards,
Peter Radizeski
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect Communicate
813.963.5884
http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
Being from Massachusetts and studying the American Revolution through
out my youth, which is one exciting piece of history, Patrick Henry and
Give me Liberty or give me Death has to be one of the cornerstone of
my beliefs.
Jeromie Reeves wrote:
On 4/26/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Peter R.
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:56 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] TTP
Has anyone spoken with any TTP for CALEA mediation boxes?
After re-reading the Cisco CALEA compliance stuff
Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
Read that document from the FCC again, there's HUGE areas of required
compliance that have NOT EVEN BEEN MENTIONED by anything to come from WISPA
nor anyone else I've seen, and we have 3 weeks to somehow bridge this gulf,
educate everyone, and try some give and take with
George Rogato wrote:
Peter R. wrote:
Mr. Hush,
Excellent plan. What agenda item will you be working on first?
SUGGESTIONS of what to do:
we have decided to
stage a cyclic disconnect from public Inet in protest.
I'm confused... Is he saying to turn the internet off for his
Peter R. wrote:
George Rogato wrote:
Peter R. wrote:
Mr. Hush,
Excellent plan. What agenda item will you be working on first?
SUGGESTIONS of what to do:
we have decided to
stage a cyclic disconnect from public Inet in protest.
I'm confused... Is he saying to turn the internet off
Again I ask you, how do you do that?
How do you get hundreds to write in?
You wrote a note that could be massaged and sent to customers. (But then
you would start losing customers almost immediately). So people have a
starting point.
The PR... you suggested that no one could write one...
Two of my competitors just sat down for lunch and worked out a network
sharing agreement. It's a handshake deal at this point though.
Basically we carved up a hilltop laying out coverage zones for each of us,
and we set a price for using each other's ap's.
Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408)
I think there are between 3000 and 6000 wisps.
I do NOT think CALEA is a bad thing. Pretty hard to abuse it and there's NO
reason for the ability to spy on bad guys to not exist.
Lastly, I just can't take it anymore! Some of you guys loose more sleep
over the little stuff. I'm FAR more
Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
Two of my competitors just sat down for lunch and worked out a network
sharing agreement. It's a handshake deal at this point though.
Basically we carved up a hilltop laying out coverage zones for each of
us, and we set a price for using each other's
- Original Message -
From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISP Peering
Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
Two of my competitors just sat down for lunch and worked out a
I'm sure he was drunk when he said it!
I'm JUST KIDDING
Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Under the normal Part-15 rules, the only devices allowed to have a non
unique connector are devices labeled for and sold only to professional
installers.
The problem is, there isn't really a good explanation of what a part-15
professional installer is.
What I've been told by the FCC is that
No. I didn't say that. What I said is that we all charge each other
the same price for the whole sale access to the network.
What each guy charges his customers I have no idea. Don't really care.
I'd rather make a couple of bucks on a connection per month and have no
support duties
We are using VantagePoint.
Mike Bushard, Jr
Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC
320-256-WISP (9477)
320-256-9478 Fax
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Peter R.
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 5:56 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] TTP
Please see inline...
- Original Message -
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's
Rules for unlicensed devices
Why wouldn't you just put up your own AP's and service the same area
rather than give that customer away to the competition?
I would spend $5k and put up my own tower before I turn a potential
customer away to the competition. I've done it many times over the years
and it has always paid off.
I am still wondering what is meant by unique for the connector.
I've seen you write that the N connector is NOT allowed. Why is that?
Lonnie
On 4/26/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Under the normal Part-15 rules, the only devices allowed to have a non
unique
Here's one definition that the FCC has used for unique connector.
Begin Quote ___
A unique connector is one that is not of a standard type found in
electronic supply stores.
_ End Quote __
jack
Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:
I've got six 20' tower sections. Made of solid core round stock. Very
heavy. Anyone interested, hit me offlist. -RickG
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Contact me offlist. -RickG
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
So once a non standard connector becomes an Industry Standard then you
will find it in most supply stores. Also, what sort of supply store?
Radio Shack or Electrocomm? Radio Shack might have the N connector,
but it is likely suitable for VHF use only. Microwave quality is not
mainstream, so
76 matches
Mail list logo
