Re: [WISPA] FW: TechNet Flash: IE9 Beta is here
I was really liking Chrome until I discovered there is no print selection capability So back to Firefox for me too! On 09/22/2010 11:23 PM, RickG wrote: I rolled back to Firefox :) On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Tom Sharples tsharp...@qorvus.com mailto:tsharp...@qorvus.com wrote: Yep, it has a variety of interesting bugs. I just rolled back to 8. Tom S. - Original Message - *From:* Robert West mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com *To:* WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Sent:* Wednesday, September 22, 2010 7:10 PM *Subject:* [WISPA] FW: TechNet Flash: IE9 Beta is here Oh, hell. IE9. Get ready for the calls…….. *From:* Microsoft [mailto:micros...@e-mail.microsoft.com mailto:micros...@e-mail.microsoft.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, September 22, 2010 8:01 PM *To:* robert.w...@just-micro.com mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com *Subject:* TechNet Flash: IE9 Beta is here TechNet Flash Newsletter /TechNet Flash/ Mobile http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bb16f64c1ec9ea5f3b62856b82c5ac7aca55dbf3e5db5a13b0bfce040e112d7c75 | Unsubscribe http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bb07af7fbf437ff595a276ab906722fa4366f9f65ccf6e4f3be6e463cf7146fd75 | Customize /TechNet Flash/ http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bbeacf81068c6a42443d9a0733ea714a590a28dbe0d0ccbeaba4548f7f20186ea2 TechNet Flash Newsletter http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bbe53ca78219447c4a3fad360637439edb815dc1db527f03bd2596461d90d7bd26 Volume 12, Issue 19 | September 22, 2010 Top Stories ts1RealizingTheFull *Realizing the Full Value of Virtualized Environments http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bbe5753bdeedd9a0b74c95605f3898e4adca7cbf25d45dadfeac6b7957c992396f* The move from physical to virtual has become a sure bet for IT organizations, and with more payoff to come, it's time to make sure your infrastructure is aligned for maximum value. ts2GetTheInternet *Get the Internet Explorer 9 Beta http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bb8c56dbf74777ff8d834079fd137b18e4b09e3e5e970726d4d87af944f66b5bc6* Internet Explorer 9 Beta is here, and it's fast. Web sites and applications look and perform as if they were native to your PC, and you'll notice a clean look and increased viewing area that makes Web sites shine. Taking full advantage of your PC's hardware through Windows, Internet Explorer 9 Beta delivers graphically rich and immersive experiences. ts3Save25 *Save 25% on TechNet Subscription Professional http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bbca9fc92fbd5ff60892009130308496eca8ccbc3d75bf324a64888d875045f5ea* With an annual subscription, you can evaluate more than 70 full-version Microsoft software titles such as Windows 7 and Office 2010 without time or feature limits. But hurry, the offer ends October 31, 2010. Use promo code *TNITQ413*. Your Featured Content *Download Microsoft Lync Server 2010 Release Candidate* http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=8ee6f7c96b13bffa9ce761156ad6362d314d778ac6bacf3b34c6445c0793ca193d41ed9fbc9b859e Microsoft Lync Server 2010 RC ushers in a new connected experience. A single interface unites voice, IM, audio-, video-, and web-conferencing into a richer, more contextual offering and a single identity makes it easier and more efficient for users to find contacts, check their availability, and connect with them. *Announcing the Springboard Series Windows 7 Deployment Learning Portal* http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=8ee6f7c96b13bffafd98ce6b4ffaac4fa7136ecbe89bf849fe2d6edbc48ea8d0b6e5ba601fda8a3e Think you know everything about deploying Windows 7? Find out with the Springboard Series Deployment Learning Portal, an online assessment and learning tool, designed to help IT pros identify their knowledge strengths and information gaps around Windows 7 deployment. *New White Paper: Plan, Implement, and Support SQL Server Virtualization* http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=8ee6f7c96b13bffafe85b5b11ad0b4e312b588e243cdf98d2accab574073d025ffb4203cb00de10c It is now possible to virtualize heavy SQL Server workloads and move virtual machines between Hyper-V hosts within a failover cluster
Re: [WISPA] Carrier pigeons faster then rural wierless?
Is that an African or English swallow? Steve Barnes RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 10:09 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Carrier pigeons faster then rural wierless? What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 7:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Carrier pigeons faster then rural wierless? Totally agree. When your Internet has to go 22,300 miles, at best, straight up for its first hop even the speed of light begins to feel slow. Speed of light = 186k miles per second. Light can travel that 22,300 miles 8.5 times in one second. That's back and forth 4 times in the time you blink. The median advertised download speed is 7Mbps. The reality is just over 4Mbps. Because Farmville needs that last 3Mbps. You can watch Netflix at full definition at those speeds. A hotel asked what their bandwidth was and we figured it to be just about 4Mbps - a hotel with dozens or hundreds of people. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Steve Barnes st...@pcswin.com wrote: Talk about trash articles. This was terrible. I hope next time they do one of these test they let us know so we can release a few hawks and a couple of guys with 12 gauge shot guns. Not to mention you ever tried to copy 300gb files from one computer to another over a standard 10/100 network. Pigeons would come close on that one as well. Why did he stop with 10 pigeons why not 100 then he could gripe about fiber being slow as well. Sheesh Steve Barnes RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of John Thomas Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 6:43 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Carrier pigeons faster then rural wierless? http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/it-8217s-official-carrier-pigeons -are-faster-than-rural-internet/173?tag=nl.e539 -- -- 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 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] Carrier pigeons faster then rural wierless?
Antarctic On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Steve Barnes st...@pcswin.com wrote: Is that an African or English swallow? Steve Barnes RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 10:09 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Carrier pigeons faster then rural wierless? What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 7:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Carrier pigeons faster then rural wierless? Totally agree. When your Internet has to go 22,300 miles, at best, straight up for its first hop even the speed of light begins to feel slow. Speed of light = 186k miles per second. Light can travel that 22,300 miles 8.5 times in one second. That's back and forth 4 times in the time you blink. The median advertised download speed is 7Mbps. The reality is just over 4Mbps. Because Farmville needs that last 3Mbps. You can watch Netflix at full definition at those speeds. A hotel asked what their bandwidth was and we figured it to be just about 4Mbps - a hotel with dozens or hundreds of people. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Steve Barnes st...@pcswin.com wrote: Talk about trash articles. This was terrible. I hope next time they do one of these test they let us know so we can release a few hawks and a couple of guys with 12 gauge shot guns. Not to mention you ever tried to copy 300gb files from one computer to another over a standard 10/100 network. Pigeons would come close on that one as well. Why did he stop with 10 pigeons why not 100 then he could gripe about fiber being slow as well. Sheesh Steve Barnes RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of John Thomas Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 6:43 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Carrier pigeons faster then rural wierless? http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/it-8217s-official-carrier-pigeons -are-faster-than-rural-internet/173?tag=nl.e539 -- -- 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 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/
Re: [WISPA] 189 mile wifi link- 5.8G Ubiquiti
On 09/23/2010 12:28 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: Any hams on the list who know if the XR5 and XR3 meet Part 97 rules? I think the high-speed digital emission is legal on the 3.5 and 5.7 GHz ham bands... and these would be neat to have for VHF contests! I don't see that as a problem Leon WA4ZLW At 9/22/2010 06:49 PM, you wrote: Pretty impressive for 5.8Ghz. I'm aware of numerous long 2.4G links, but this is clearly a record for 5.8G. http://www.gizmag.com/go/7878/ It was even over water, all be it, it was also on top of a mountain a mile high :-) They said they pulled off 5 mbps. Its funny, I remember conversatiosn when SR5s first came out, where some people stated they wouldn't risk using them for long links over 10miles or so, because a low price product likely was lower grade. I got to say, way to go Ubiquiti! 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] VOIP PHONE 10 Mhz
On 09/22/2010 10:18 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: DECT phone in the install rig with a 10mhz radio and a ATA. or A DECT IP phone and 10 mhz radio. I have a Siemens A580IP base + handsets works fine...cuts one item out of the picture. leon On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: 10mhz will be rough. Maybe an ns2 an voip phone? One installer used a cisco phone for this. He liked it, made me smile. On Sep 22, 2010 1:11 PM, Charles N Wyblechar...@knownelement.com wrote: SIP app on Android or iPhone? On 09/22/2010 10:09 AM, Steve Barnes wrote: I am looking for a Wireless VOIP Phone that my instal... 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] FW: TechNet Flash: IE9 Beta is here
Take a look at this.. to see if it solves your problem. http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2010/09/print-selection-in-google-chrome.html?utm_source=twitterfeedutm_medium=twitter Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 9/23/2010 5:13 AM, Matt Jenkins wrote: I was really liking Chrome until I discovered there is no print selection capability So back to Firefox for me too! On 09/22/2010 11:23 PM, RickG wrote: I rolled back to Firefox :) On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Tom Sharplestsharp...@qorvus.com mailto:tsharp...@qorvus.com wrote: Yep, it has a variety of interesting bugs. I just rolled back to 8. Tom S. - Original Message - *From:* Robert Westmailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com *To:* WISPA General Listmailto:wireless@wispa.org *Sent:* Wednesday, September 22, 2010 7:10 PM *Subject:* [WISPA] FW: TechNet Flash: IE9 Beta is here Oh, hell. IE9. Get ready for the calls…….. *From:* Microsoft [mailto:micros...@e-mail.microsoft.com mailto:micros...@e-mail.microsoft.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, September 22, 2010 8:01 PM *To:* robert.w...@just-micro.com mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com *Subject:* TechNet Flash: IE9 Beta is here TechNet Flash Newsletter /TechNet Flash/ Mobile http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bb16f64c1ec9ea5f3b62856b82c5ac7aca55dbf3e5db5a13b0bfce040e112d7c75 | Unsubscribe http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bb07af7fbf437ff595a276ab906722fa4366f9f65ccf6e4f3be6e463cf7146fd75 | Customize /TechNet Flash/ http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bbeacf81068c6a42443d9a0733ea714a590a28dbe0d0ccbeaba4548f7f20186ea2 TechNet Flash Newsletter http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bbe53ca78219447c4a3fad360637439edb815dc1db527f03bd2596461d90d7bd26 Volume 12, Issue 19 | September 22, 2010 Top Stories ts1RealizingTheFull *Realizing the Full Value of Virtualized Environments http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bbe5753bdeedd9a0b74c95605f3898e4adca7cbf25d45dadfeac6b7957c992396f* The move from physical to virtual has become a sure bet for IT organizations, and with more payoff to come, it's time to make sure your infrastructure is aligned for maximum value. ts2GetTheInternet *Get the Internet Explorer 9 Beta http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bb8c56dbf74777ff8d834079fd137b18e4b09e3e5e970726d4d87af944f66b5bc6* Internet Explorer 9 Beta is here, and it's fast. Web sites and applications look and perform as if they were native to your PC, and you'll notice a clean look and increased viewing area that makes Web sites shine. Taking full advantage of your PC's hardware through Windows, Internet Explorer 9 Beta delivers graphically rich and immersive experiences. ts3Save25 *Save 25% on TechNet Subscription Professional http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bbca9fc92fbd5ff60892009130308496eca8ccbc3d75bf324a64888d875045f5ea* With an annual subscription, you can evaluate more than 70 full-version Microsoft software titles such as Windows 7 and Office 2010 without time or feature limits. But hurry, the offer ends October 31, 2010. Use promo code *TNITQ413*. Your Featured Content *Download Microsoft Lync Server 2010 Release Candidate* http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=8ee6f7c96b13bffa9ce761156ad6362d314d778ac6bacf3b34c6445c0793ca193d41ed9fbc9b859e Microsoft Lync Server 2010 RC ushers in a new connected experience. A single interface unites voice, IM, audio-, video-, and web-conferencing into a richer, more contextual offering and a single identity makes it easier and more efficient for users to find contacts, check their availability, and connect with them. *Announcing the Springboard Series Windows 7 Deployment Learning Portal* http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=8ee6f7c96b13bffafd98ce6b4ffaac4fa7136ecbe89bf849fe2d6edbc48ea8d0b6e5ba601fda8a3e Think you know everything about deploying Windows 7? Find out with the Springboard Series Deployment Learning Portal, an online assessment and learning tool, designed to help IT pros identify their knowledge strengths and information gaps around Windows 7 deployment. *New White Paper: Plan, Implement, and Support SQL Server
Re: [WISPA] FW: TechNet Flash: IE9 Beta is here
One of my son's recently asked me about Opera I had not taken a look at it in a long time... They have come a long way, and in initial look, appeared pretty impressive. Anyone else following / using Opera ? Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 9/23/2010 2:23 AM, RickG wrote: I rolled back to Firefox :) On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Tom Sharples tsharp...@qorvus.com mailto:tsharp...@qorvus.com wrote: Yep, it has a variety of interesting bugs. I just rolled back to 8. Tom S. - Original Message - *From:* Robert West mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com *To:* WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Sent:* Wednesday, September 22, 2010 7:10 PM *Subject:* [WISPA] FW: TechNet Flash: IE9 Beta is here Oh, hell. IE9. Get ready for the calls…….. *From:* Microsoft [mailto:micros...@e-mail.microsoft.com mailto:micros...@e-mail.microsoft.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, September 22, 2010 8:01 PM *To:* robert.w...@just-micro.com mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com *Subject:* TechNet Flash: IE9 Beta is here TechNet Flash Newsletter /TechNet Flash/ Mobile http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bb16f64c1ec9ea5f3b62856b82c5ac7aca55dbf3e5db5a13b0bfce040e112d7c75 | Unsubscribe http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bb07af7fbf437ff595a276ab906722fa4366f9f65ccf6e4f3be6e463cf7146fd75 | Customize /TechNet Flash/ http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bbeacf81068c6a42443d9a0733ea714a590a28dbe0d0ccbeaba4548f7f20186ea2 TechNet Flash Newsletter http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bbe53ca78219447c4a3fad360637439edb815dc1db527f03bd2596461d90d7bd26 Volume 12, Issue 19 | September 22, 2010 Top Stories ts1RealizingTheFull *Realizing the Full Value of Virtualized Environments http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bbe5753bdeedd9a0b74c95605f3898e4adca7cbf25d45dadfeac6b7957c992396f* The move from physical to virtual has become a sure bet for IT organizations, and with more payoff to come, it's time to make sure your infrastructure is aligned for maximum value. ts2GetTheInternet *Get the Internet Explorer 9 Beta http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bb8c56dbf74777ff8d834079fd137b18e4b09e3e5e970726d4d87af944f66b5bc6* Internet Explorer 9 Beta is here, and it's fast. Web sites and applications look and perform as if they were native to your PC, and you'll notice a clean look and increased viewing area that makes Web sites shine. Taking full advantage of your PC's hardware through Windows, Internet Explorer 9 Beta delivers graphically rich and immersive experiences. ts3Save25 *Save 25% on TechNet Subscription Professional http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bbca9fc92fbd5ff60892009130308496eca8ccbc3d75bf324a64888d875045f5ea* With an annual subscription, you can evaluate more than 70 full-version Microsoft software titles such as Windows 7 and Office 2010 without time or feature limits. But hurry, the offer ends October 31, 2010. Use promo code *TNITQ413*. Your Featured Content *Download Microsoft Lync Server 2010 Release Candidate* http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=8ee6f7c96b13bffa9ce761156ad6362d314d778ac6bacf3b34c6445c0793ca193d41ed9fbc9b859e Microsoft Lync Server 2010 RC ushers in a new connected experience. A single interface unites voice, IM, audio-, video-, and web-conferencing into a richer, more contextual offering and a single identity makes it easier and more efficient for users to find contacts, check their availability, and connect with them. *Announcing the Springboard Series Windows 7 Deployment Learning Portal* http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=8ee6f7c96b13bffafd98ce6b4ffaac4fa7136ecbe89bf849fe2d6edbc48ea8d0b6e5ba601fda8a3e Think you know everything about deploying Windows 7? Find out with the Springboard Series Deployment Learning Portal, an online assessment and learning tool, designed to help IT pros identify their knowledge strengths and information gaps around Windows 7 deployment. *New White Paper: Plan, Implement, and Support SQL Server Virtualization* http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=8ee6f7c96b13bffafe85b5b11ad0b4e312b588e243cdf98d2accab574073d025ffb4203cb00de10c It is now possible to virtualize heavy
[WISPA] Morning report Copper Theft
From the DHS Morning report. I have to admit, the story gave me a bit of a chuckle - 1 million dollars worth of copper? Wow! http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2010/09/copper_taken_from_communicatio.html Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. 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] Referral Programs
We are looking into creating a solid referral program. Does anyone have input on what has worked well and what hasn't? We were thinking of a free month of service for the new customer and referring one. Is this too much? Any thoughts? -- Jeremy J. Rodgers Sales Manager OnlyInternet Broadband and Wireless O: 260.827.2234 O: 800.363.0989 F: 260.824.9624 "But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD." Joshua 24:15 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] Morning report Copper Theft
Well, they corrected the value. Now they say $8k in damages . . . LOL http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2010/09/copper_theft_causes_8k_in_dama.html Dave Hannum New Era Broadband, LLC On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Blake Bowers bbow...@mozarks.com wrote: From the DHS Morning report. I have to admit, the story gave me a bit of a chuckle - 1 million dollars worth of copper? Wow! http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2010/09/copper_taken_from_communicatio.html Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. 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] FW: TechNet Flash: IE9 Beta is here
I use it some. The latest version is pretty good. Sent from my iPhone4 On Sep 23, 2010, at 8:48 AM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net wrote: One of my son's recently asked me about Opera I had not taken a look at it in a long time... They have come a long way, and in initial look, appeared pretty impressive. Anyone else following / using Opera ? Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 9/23/2010 2:23 AM, RickG wrote: I rolled back to Firefox :) On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Tom Sharples tsharp...@qorvus.com mailto:tsharp...@qorvus.com wrote: Yep, it has a variety of interesting bugs. I just rolled back to 8. Tom S. - Original Message - *From:* Robert West mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com *To:* WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Sent:* Wednesday, September 22, 2010 7:10 PM *Subject:* [WISPA] FW: TechNet Flash: IE9 Beta is here Oh, hell. IE9. Get ready for the calls…….. *From:* Microsoft [mailto:micros...@e-mail.microsoft.com mailto:micros...@e-mail.microsoft.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, September 22, 2010 8:01 PM *To:* robert.w...@just-micro.com mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com *Subject:* TechNet Flash: IE9 Beta is here TechNet Flash Newsletter /TechNet Flash/ Mobile http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bb16f64c1ec9ea5f3b62856b82c5ac7aca55dbf3e5db5a13b0bfce040e112d7c75 | Unsubscribe http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bb07af7fbf437ff595a276ab906722fa4366f9f65ccf6e4f3be6e463cf7146fd75 | Customize /TechNet Flash/ http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bbeacf81068c6a42443d9a0733ea714a590a28dbe0d0ccbeaba4548f7f20186ea2 TechNet Flash Newsletter http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bbe53ca78219447c4a3fad360637439edb815dc1db527f03bd2596461d90d7bd26 Volume 12, Issue 19 | September 22, 2010 Top Stories ts1RealizingTheFull *Realizing the Full Value of Virtualized Environments http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bbe5753bdeedd9a0b74c95605f3898e4adca7cbf25d45dadfeac6b7957c992396f* The move from physical to virtual has become a sure bet for IT organizations, and with more payoff to come, it's time to make sure your infrastructure is aligned for maximum value. ts2GetTheInternet *Get the Internet Explorer 9 Beta http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bb8c56dbf74777ff8d834079fd137b18e4b09e3e5e970726d4d87af944f66b5bc6* Internet Explorer 9 Beta is here, and it's fast. Web sites and applications look and perform as if they were native to your PC, and you'll notice a clean look and increased viewing area that makes Web sites shine. Taking full advantage of your PC's hardware through Windows, Internet Explorer 9 Beta delivers graphically rich and immersive experiences. ts3Save25 *Save 25% on TechNet Subscription Professional http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bbca9fc92fbd5ff60892009130308496eca8ccbc3d75bf324a64888d875045f5ea* With an annual subscription, you can evaluate more than 70 full-version Microsoft software titles such as Windows 7 and Office 2010 without time or feature limits. But hurry, the offer ends October 31, 2010. Use promo code *TNITQ413*. Your Featured Content *Download Microsoft Lync Server 2010 Release Candidate* http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=8ee6f7c96b13bffa9ce761156ad6362d314d778ac6bacf3b34c6445c0793ca193d41ed9fbc9b859e Microsoft Lync Server 2010 RC ushers in a new connected experience. A single interface unites voice, IM, audio-, video-, and web-conferencing into a richer, more contextual offering and a single identity makes it easier and more efficient for users to find contacts, check their availability, and connect with them. *Announcing the Springboard Series Windows 7 Deployment Learning Portal* http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=8ee6f7c96b13bffafd98ce6b4ffaac4fa7136ecbe89bf849fe2d6edbc48ea8d0b6e5ba601fda8a3e Think you know everything about deploying Windows 7? Find out with the Springboard Series Deployment Learning Portal, an online assessment and learning tool, designed to help IT pros identify their knowledge strengths and information gaps around Windows 7 deployment. *New White Paper: Plan, Implement, and Support SQL Server Virtualization*
[WISPA] Whitespaces
Meeting is very soon. I'm jazzed. You all watching it live? I have a client today so won't be able to give it my full attention. Looking forward to a positive ruling!!! -- from the desk of Charles wyble ceo president known element enterprises xmpp/sip/smtp: char...@knownelement.com legacy pstn: 818 280 7059 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] Referral Programs
I don't cap how much they can get. If they bring me a $10k/month account, I compensate them appropriately. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 9/23/2010 9:08 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: Free month up to 50 for a new customer that's installed for 90 days. On Sep 23, 2010 9:59 AM, Jeremy Rodgers jeremyrodg...@onlyinternet.net mailto:jeremyrodg...@onlyinternet.net wrote: WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org mailto: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/
Re: [WISPA] Referral Programs
We usually give a free month to the one referring if it is equal to or greater than what they have. We give the customer the credit after the new customer pays the first bill. Also I have had a few employees from companies we have that have referred people to us. For those we get a gift card to sams/walmart or a restaurant of their choice. Sent from my iPhone4 On Sep 23, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Jeremy Rodgers jeremyrodg...@onlyinternet.net wrote: We are looking into creating a solid referral program. Does anyone have input on what has worked well and what hasn't? We were thinking of a free month of service for the new customer and referring one. Is this too much? Any thoughts? -- Jeremy J. Rodgers Sales Manager OnlyInternet Broadband and Wireless O: 260.827.2234 O: 800.363.0989 F: 260.824.9624 …But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD. Joshua 24:15 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] FW: TechNet Flash: IE9 Beta is here
I use it some, but end up using Firefox or Chrome because I like the look and feel plus I want plugin support for thing like ad blocking and LastPass. I'm a big LastPass user. Greg On Sep 23, 2010, at 9:18 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: One of my son's recently asked me about Opera I had not taken a look at it in a long time... They have come a long way, and in initial look, appeared pretty impressive. Anyone else following / using Opera ? Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 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] VOIP PHONE 10 Mhz
I had forgot about the IP base's as none of them did what I wanted. I would murder to have a IP base stations that could hand off to each other and handle 4 lines. So far everything I find use's its own repeaters and limits the handsets to 1 or 2 lines. On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 6:05 AM, Leon D. Zetekoff wa4...@backwoodswireless.net wrote: On 09/22/2010 10:18 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: DECT phone in the install rig with a 10mhz radio and a ATA. or A DECT IP phone and 10 mhz radio. I have a Siemens A580IP base + handsets works fine...cuts one item out of the picture. leon On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: 10mhz will be rough. Maybe an ns2 an voip phone? One installer used a cisco phone for this. He liked it, made me smile. On Sep 22, 2010 1:11 PM, Charles N Wyblechar...@knownelement.com wrote: SIP app on Android or iPhone? On 09/22/2010 10:09 AM, Steve Barnes wrote: I am looking for a Wireless VOIP Phone that my instal... 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] Whitespaces
What is the twitter hashtag? #TVWS? Victoria Proffer - President/CEO www.ShowMeBroadband.com www.StLouisBroadband.com 314-974-5600 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Rick Harnish Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:16 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Whitespaces http://reboot.fcc.gov/live -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Charles n wyble Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:05 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Whitespaces Meeting is very soon. I'm jazzed. You all watching it live? I have a client today so won't be able to give it my full attention. Looking forward to a positive ruling!!! -- from the desk of Charles wyble ceo president known element enterprises xmpp/sip/smtp: char...@knownelement.com legacy pstn: 818 280 7059 --- - 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/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3154 - Release Date: 09/23/10 01:34:00 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] Morning report Copper Theft
1 mill was a lot more fun! Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: David Hannum oujas...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 8:59 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Morning report Copper Theft Well, they corrected the value. Now they say $8k in damages . . . LOL http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2010/09/copper_theft_causes_8k_in_dama.html Dave Hannum New Era Broadband, LLC On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Blake Bowers bbow...@mozarks.com wrote: From the DHS Morning report. I have to admit, the story gave me a bit of a chuckle - 1 million dollars worth of copper? Wow! http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2010/09/copper_taken_from_communicatio.html Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. 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/
Re: [WISPA] Whitespaces
What is the final result? --- Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of Learn RouterOS -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of St. Louis Broadband Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:34 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Whitespaces What is the twitter hashtag? #TVWS? Victoria Proffer - President/CEO www.ShowMeBroadband.com www.StLouisBroadband.com 314-974-5600 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Rick Harnish Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:16 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Whitespaces http://reboot.fcc.gov/live -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Charles n wyble Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:05 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Whitespaces Meeting is very soon. I'm jazzed. You all watching it live? I have a client today so won't be able to give it my full attention. Looking forward to a positive ruling!!! -- from the desk of Charles wyble ceo president known element enterprises xmpp/sip/smtp: char...@knownelement.com legacy pstn: 818 280 7059 -- - - 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/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3154 - Release Date: 09/23/10 01:34:00 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] Whitespaces
It makes me want to hit mute. Lots of Connected Nation type talk. Let's do awesome stuff, ya!!! How? ??? PROFIT!!! Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Dennis Burgess dmburg...@linktechs.net wrote: What is the final result? --- Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of Learn RouterOS -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of St. Louis Broadband Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:34 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Whitespaces What is the twitter hashtag? #TVWS? Victoria Proffer - President/CEO www.ShowMeBroadband.com www.StLouisBroadband.com 314-974-5600 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Rick Harnish Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:16 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Whitespaces http://reboot.fcc.gov/live -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Charles n wyble Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:05 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Whitespaces Meeting is very soon. I'm jazzed. You all watching it live? I have a client today so won't be able to give it my full attention. Looking forward to a positive ruling!!! -- from the desk of Charles wyble ceo president known element enterprises xmpp/sip/smtp: char...@knownelement.com legacy pstn: 818 280 7059 -- - - 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/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3154 - Release Date: 09/23/10 01:34:00 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/
Re: [WISPA] Whitespaces
Then you wouldn't be able to hear the politics. Sent from my iPhone4 On Sep 23, 2010, at 10:15 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: It makes me want to hit mute. Lots of Connected Nation type talk. Let's do awesome stuff, ya!!! How? ??? PROFIT!!! Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Dennis Burgess dmburg...@linktechs.net wrote: What is the final result? --- Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of Learn RouterOS -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of St. Louis Broadband Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:34 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Whitespaces What is the twitter hashtag? #TVWS? Victoria Proffer - President/CEO www.ShowMeBroadband.com www.StLouisBroadband.com 314-974-5600 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Rick Harnish Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:16 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Whitespaces http://reboot.fcc.gov/live -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Charles n wyble Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:05 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Whitespaces Meeting is very soon. I'm jazzed. You all watching it live? I have a client today so won't be able to give it my full attention. Looking forward to a positive ruling!!! -- from the desk of Charles wyble ceo president known element enterprises xmpp/sip/smtp: char...@knownelement.com legacy pstn: 818 280 7059 -- - - 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/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3154 - Release Date: 09/23/10 01:34:00 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 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] TVWS
I'm sure we will have much more detail in the coming 24 hours. Notes I took: No Spectrum Sensing mandated, but further development is encouraged Geo-location Database to be developed in the next few months Two channels reserved for microphone use Large users of microphones can apply for temporary license and inclusion in the Geo-location database Backhaul use will be further analyzed in the coming months. No mention of antenna heights in this oral proceeding Commissioners recognize the value proposition that unlicensed spectrum presents to economic development for US Manufacturers, integrators and end users. I believe I heard mention of an estimated 9 billion dollar industry being borne from this decision. Overall, the WISPA position is in line with most of the results. Only time will tell on the minute details of the final order as it is released to the public. Respectfully, Rick Harnish Executive Director WISPA 260-307-4000 cell 866-317-2851 WISPA Office Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org From: motor...@afmug.com [mailto:motor...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Dylan Bouterse Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:16 AM To: motor...@afmug.com Subject: RE: [Motorola II] TVWS I'm confused too. Sounded like a few people going through an intro and then they all voted for it. Maybe somebody who knows what actually happened in that short 30 minutes could explain? J Dylan From: motor...@afmug.com [mailto:motor...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:13 AM To: motor...@afmug.com Subject: [Motorola II] TVWS SO what we did get? Only the removal of spectrum sensing? 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/
Re: [WISPA] [Motorola II] TVWS
I did not see any of this, can we read what was said or was it recorded somewhere? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Rick Harnish rharn...@wispa.org wrote: I’m sure we will have much more detail in the coming 24 hours. Notes I took: No Spectrum Sensing mandated, but further development is encouraged Geo-location Database to be developed in the next few months Two channels reserved for microphone use Large “users” of microphones can apply for “temporary” license and inclusion in the Geo-location database Backhaul use will be further analyzed in the coming months. No mention of antenna heights in this oral proceeding Commissioners recognize the value proposition that unlicensed spectrum presents to economic development for US Manufacturers, integrators and end users. I believe I heard mention of an estimated 9 billion dollar industry being borne from this decision. Overall, the WISPA position is in line with most of the results. Only time will tell on the minute details of the final order as it is released to the public. Respectfully, Rick Harnish Executive Director WISPA 260-307-4000 cell 866-317-2851 WISPA Office Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org From: motor...@afmug.com [mailto:motor...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Dylan Bouterse Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:16 AM To: motor...@afmug.com Subject: RE: [Motorola II] TVWS I’m confused too. Sounded like a few people going through an intro and then they all voted for “it”. Maybe somebody who knows what actually happened in that short 30 minutes could explain? J Dylan From: motor...@afmug.com [mailto:motor...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:13 AM To: motor...@afmug.com Subject: [Motorola II] TVWS SO what we did get? Only the removal of spectrum sensing? 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/
Re: [WISPA] TVWS
So is there going to be a new report and order published? If so any idea on when it will be released? On 09/23/2010 08:54 AM, Rick Harnish wrote: I'm sure we will have much more detail in the coming 24 hours. Notes I took: No Spectrum Sensing mandated, but further development is encouraged Geo-location Database to be developed in the next few months Two channels reserved for microphone use Large users of microphones can apply for temporary license and inclusion in the Geo-location database Backhaul use will be further analyzed in the coming months. No mention of antenna heights in this oral proceeding Commissioners recognize the value proposition that unlicensed spectrum presents to economic development for US Manufacturers, integrators and end users. I believe I heard mention of an estimated 9 billion dollar industry being borne from this decision. Overall, the WISPA position is in line with most of the results. Only time will tell on the minute details of the final order as it is released to the public. Respectfully, *Rick Harnish* Executive Director WISPA 260-307-4000 cell 866-317-2851 WISPA Office Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org *From:* motor...@afmug.com [mailto:motor...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Dylan Bouterse *Sent:* Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:16 AM *To:* motor...@afmug.com *Subject:* RE: [Motorola II] TVWS I'm confused too. Sounded like a few people going through an intro and then they all voted for it. Maybe somebody who knows what actually happened in that short 30 minutes could explain? J Dylan *From:* motor...@afmug.com [mailto:motor...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Gino Villarini *Sent:* Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:13 AM *To:* motor...@afmug.com *Subject:* [Motorola II] TVWS SO what we did get? Only the removal of spectrum sensing? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com mailto: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/ 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] Netflix goes to Canada partly because of great Broadband
*Reed Hastings:* For now we're focused on Canada. If we succeed in Canada, we will certainly look at other markets. But each market is unique, and what attracted us to Canada is great broadband, and a great love of movies and TV shows. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3if1d3902d12574ec222961f1deec0fd2b 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] Netflix goes to Canada partly because of great Broadband
Interesting language from the CEO of a consumer services company regarding his customer base: THR: Are you concerned that American Netflix subscribers will look north and ask for the same discount Canadians get at $7.99? Hastings: How much has it been your experience that Americans follow what happens in the world? It's something we'll monitor, but Americans are somewhat self-absorbed. Doesn't hurt that Blockbuster filed Chapter 11. Maybe the Canadians will be able to stream more than the latest Gunsmoke reruns. But they still cant stream Red Green. Go figure. Chris Intelliwave -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of David Hannum Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 12:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Netflix goes to Canada partly because of great Broadband Reed Hastings: For now we're focused on Canada. If we succeed in Canada, we will certainly look at other markets. But each market is unique, and what attracted us to Canada is great broadband, and a great love of movies and TV shows. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3if1d3902d1257 4ec222961f1deec0fd2b No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3152 - Release Date: 09/23/10 02:34:00 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] Netflix goes to Canada partly because of great Broadband
Aren't all Canadian broadband users charged by the meg? On Sep 23, 2010 12:50 PM, chris cooper ccoo...@intelliwave.com wrote: Interesting language from the CEO of a consumer services company regarding his customer base: THR: Are you concerned that American Netflix subscribers will look north and ask for the same discount Canadians get at $7.99? Hastings: How much has it been your experience that Americans follow what happens in the world? It's something we'll monitor, but Americans are somewhat self-absorbed. Doesn't hurt that Blockbuster filed Chapter 11. Maybe the Canadians will be able to stream more than the latest Gunsmoke reruns. But they still cant stream Red Green. Go figure. Chris Intelliwave -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of David Hannum Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 12:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Netflix goes to Canada partly because of great Broadband Reed Hastings: For now we're focused on Canada. If we succeed in Canada, we will certainly look at other markets. But each market is unique, and what attracted us to Canada is great broadband, and a great love of movies and TV shows. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3if1d3902d1257 4ec222961f1deec0fd2b No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3152 - Release Date: 09/23/10 02:34:00 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] Referral Programs
We provide a credit equal to one months $ at the rate the new customer picks. No limits. 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] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND
2nd Memorandum and Order http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/index.do?document=301652 Rick Harnish Executive Director WISPA 260-307-4000 cell 866-317-2851 WISPA Office Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org 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] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND
Hmm... looks like we need to keep up the good fight: Finally, it is important that we address additional proposals to set aside TV channels in rural areas for fixed licensed backhaul in the very near future. The ability of both new and incumbent wireless providers to provide 4G wireless services ubiquitously is dependent upon a robust wireless infrastructure that is too often lacking in rural areas. 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] Minimum Receive Antenna Height Removed
56. With the elimination of the spectrum sensing requirement for TV bands devices that use geo-location and database access, there is collaterally no longer a need for a minimum receive antenna height for fixed devices, and we are consequently removing that requirement from the rules. We are also revising and amending certain elements the rules so that they continue to provide comparable assurance of protection against interference in the absence of sensing capabilities and to clarify and simplify the rules as they pertain to interference protection. In addition to revisions of the geo-location and database access rules, the changes include revision of certain terms used in the rules and elimination of the terms client device, client mode, master device, and master mode. Respectfully, Rick Harnish Executive Director WISPA 260-307-4000 cell 866-317-2851 WISPA Office Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org 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] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND
At 9/23/2010 03:43 PM, you wrote: Hmm... looks like we need to keep up the good fight: I know this is out of line with the WISPA consensus, but it seems to me that if there are more than 10 white space channels in a given area, then letting Part 101 point-to-point operations share them could be in our best interests. Backhaul for WISPs is often very expensive, so a couple of channels (for FDD) of UHF backhaul could be just the ticket. Of course these should be available to any qualified Part 101 applicant, not just a CMRS licensee. If this were allowed to the extent that it displaced PtMP operation, then of course it would be bad, but it might make more sense to suggest some numbers, like 2 channels out of (a minimum white space of) 10, and one out of every additional 2, so if there were 20 channels, 7 would be allowed for PtP and 13 for PtMP. Finally, it is important that we address additional proposals to set aside TV channels in rural areas for fixed licensed backhaul in the very near future. The ability of both new and incumbent wireless providers to provide 4G wireless services ubiquitously is dependent upon a robust wireless infrastructure that is too often lacking in rural areas. 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/ -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 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] Transmit Antenna Height
65. Decision. We decline to increase the maximum permitted transmit antenna height above ground for fixed TV bands devices. As the Commission stated in the Second Report and Order, the 30 meters above ground limit was established as a balance between the benefits of increasing TV bands device transmission range and the need to minimize the impact on licensed services.129 Consistent with the Commission's stated approach in the Second Report and Order of taking a conservative approach in protecting authorized services, we find the prudent course of action is to maintain the previously adopted height limit. If, in the future, experience with TV bands devices indicates that these devices could operate at higher transmit heights without causing interference, the Commission could revisit the height limit. 66. While we expect that specifying a limit on antenna height above ground rather than above average terrain is satisfactory for controlling interference to authorized services in the majority of cases, we also recognize petitioners' concerns about the increased potential for interference in instances where a fixed TV bands device antenna is located on a local geographic high point such as a hill or mountain.130 In such cases, the distance at which a TV bands device signal could propagate would be significantly increased, thus increasing the potential for interference to authorized operations in the TV bands. We therefore conclude that it is necessary to modify our rules to limit the antenna HAAT of a fixed device as well as its antenna height above ground. In considering a limit for antenna HAAT, we need to balance the concerns for long range propagation from high points against the typical variability of ground height that occurs in areas where there are significant local high points - we do not want to preclude fixed devices from a large number of sites in areas where there are rolling hills or a large number of relatively high points that do not generally provide open, line-of-sight paths for propagation over long distances. We find that limiting the fixed device antenna HAAT to 106 meters (350 feet), as calculated by the TV bands database, provides an appropriate balance of these concerns. We will therefore restrict fixed TV bands devices from operating at locations where the HAAT of the ground is greater than 76 meters; this will allow use of an antenna at a height of up to 30 meters above ground level to provide an antenna HAAT of 106 meters. Accordingly, we are specifying that a fixed TV bands device antenna may not be located at a site where the ground HAAT is greater than 75 meters (246 feet). The ground HAAT is to be calculated by the TV bands database using computational software employing the methodology in Section 73.684(d) of the rules to ensure that fixed devices comply with this requirement. 130 The antenna height above ground is the distance from the antenna center of radiation to the actual ground directly below the antenna. To calculate the antenna height above average terrain (HAAT), the average elevation of the surrounding terrain above mean sea level must be determined along at least 8 evenly spaced radials at distances from 3 to 16 km from the transmitter site. The HAAT is the difference between the antenna height above mean sea level (the antenna height above ground plus the site elevation) and the average elevation of the surrounding terrain. 67. In reexamining this issue, we also note that the rules currently do not indicate that fixed device antenna heights must be provided to the database for use in determining available channels. It was clearly the Commission's intent that fixed devices include their height when querying the database because the available channels for fixed devices cannot be determined without this information.131 We are therefore modifying Sections 15.711(b)(3) and 15.713(f)(3) to indicate that fixed devices must submit their antenna height above ground to the database. 68. We continue to decline to establish height limits for personal/portable devices. As the Commission stated in the Second Report and Order, there is no practical way to enforce such limits, and such limits are not necessary due to the different technical and operational characteristics of personal/portable devices. Respectfully, Rick Harnish Executive Director WISPA 260-307-4000 cell 866-317-2851 WISPA Office Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org 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] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND
And the fact still remains that if these areas are so rural, there will also be access to 6 GHz and other licensed microwave channels for the same exact arguments they make for the licensed backhaul use of TVWS. Brian From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Charles N Wyble Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:44 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND Hmm... looks like we need to keep up the good fight: Finally, it is important that we address additional proposals to set aside TV channels in rural areas for fixed licensed backhaul in the very near future. The ability of both new and incumbent wireless providers to provide 4G wireless services ubiquitously is dependent upon a robust wireless infrastructure that is too often lacking in rural areas. 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] Fixed Licensed Point-to-Point Backhaul Use
137. Decision. We decline to set aside TV channels for fixed licensed backhaul use as requested by FiberTower at this time. As indicated above, the Broadband Action Agenda recently indicated an intention that the Commission initiate rule making proceedings to increase spectrum efficiency and innovation in various frequency bands292 including the broadcast TV spectrum.293 We intend to consider FiberTower's requests for spectrum for fixed licensed backhaul to support broadband services in the broader context of these future proceedings in order to better ensure a comprehensive approach to wireless rural backhaul in these bands. We disagree with FiberTower's contention that we should not delay in addressing its request for access to the TV bands because it would be impossible for the Commission to authorize licensed uses after unlicensed devices occupy the TV bands. Both fixed and personal/portable devices are to rely on a TV bands device database as their primary method for determining available channels. If the Commission makes changes to the rules concerning permissible channels of operation, imposes geographic area restrictions or makes other changes to the technical parameters for TV bands devices, these will be taken into account by the database administrator in determining available channels for TV bands devices. Therefore, any TV bands device that operates on a channel that is later designated for another use would cease operation on that channel after it performs its daily database check and the database indicates that the channel is no longer available for use. As we move forward, however, we are interested in pursuing the question of whether we can accommodate licensed rural backhaul in the white spaces within the UHF bands. Therefore, Commission staff will evaluate this possibility over the coming months, and will formulate and submit a recommendation on next steps to the Commissioners by the end of 2010. 289 For example, see Community Broadcasters opposition at 3, Dell/Microsoft opposition at 18, Google opposition at 19, PISC opposition at 2, and SBE opposition at 12. WISPA believes that wireless backhaul could be implemented in the white spaces by allowing 20 watts transmitter power in rural areas rather than reserving 36 megahertz of spectrum as requested by FiberTower and others. WISPA opposition at 12. As discussed above, we decline to increase the power limit for fixed TV bands devices. Respectively, Rick Harnish Executive Director WISPA 260-307-4000 cell 866-317-2851 WISPA Office Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org 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] Transmit Antenna Height
This item alone may be the show-stopper, the poison pill that makes it useless to WISPs in much of the country. In places where the routine variation in elevation is more than 75 meters, there will be houses (subscribers) that are more than 76 meters AAT. I notice this in the areas I'm studying, both in the east and in the upper midwest. In a place like Kansas, nobody is 75m AAT. But in the woody Berkshires of Western Massachusetts, the UHF space is needed to get through the trees, and a significant share of houses are 75m AAT. Also, if you want to cover a decent radius, the access point needs to be up the hill too. 75 meters isn't a mountaintop; it's just a little rise. It makes no sense to absolutely ban fixed use at a site that is 100m AAT if the nearest protected-service contour is, say, 50 miles away. A more sensible rule would be to follow broadcast practice, and lower the ERP based on height, so that the distance to a given signal strength contour is held constant as the height rises. Hence a Class A FM station is allowed up to 15 miles, and if it is more than 300 feet AAT, then it is allowed less than the 3000 watts ERP that apply at lower heights. Maybe the lawyers want to have more petitions to argue over. At 9/23/2010 04:07 PM, Rich Harnish wrote: 65. Decision. We decline to increase the maximum permitted transmit antenna height above ground for fixed TV bands devices. As the Commission stated in the Second Report and Order, the 30 meters above ground limit was established as a balance between the benefits of increasing TV bands device transmission range and the need to minimize the impact on licensed services.129 Consistent with the Commission's stated approach in the Second Report and Order of taking a conservative approach in protecting authorized services, we find the prudent course of action is to maintain the previously adopted height limit. If, in the future, experience with TV bands devices indicates that these devices could operate at higher transmit heights without causing interference, the Commission could revisit the height limit. 66. While we expect that specifying a limit on antenna height above ground rather than above average terrain is satisfactory for controlling interference to authorized services in the majority of cases, we also recognize petitioners' concerns about the increased potential for interference in instances where a fixed TV bands device antenna is located on a local geographic high point such as a hill or mountain.130 In such cases, the distance at which a TV bands device signal could propagate would be significantly increased, thus increasing the potential for interference to authorized operations in the TV bands. We therefore conclude that it is necessary to modify our rules to limit the antenna HAAT of a fixed device as well as its antenna height above ground. In considering a limit for antenna HAAT, we need to balance the concerns for long range propagation from high points against the typical variability of ground height that occurs in areas where there are significant local high points we do not want to preclude fixed devices from a large number of sites in areas where there are rolling hills or a large number of relatively high points that do not generally provide open, line-of-sight paths for propagation over long distances. We find that limiting the fixed device antenna HAAT to 106 meters (350 feet), as calculated by the TV bands database, provides an appropriate balance of these concerns. We will therefore restrict fixed TV bands devices from operating at locations where the HAAT of the ground is greater than 76 meters; this will allow use of an antenna at a height of up to 30 meters above ground level to provide an antenna HAAT of 106 meters. Accordingly, we are specifying that a fixed TV bands device antenna may not be located at a site where the ground HAAT is greater than 75 meters (246 feet). The ground HAAT is to be calculated by the TV bands database using computational software employing the methodology in Section 73.684(d) of the rules to ensure that fixed devices comply with this requirement. 130 The antenna height above ground is the distance from the antenna center of radiation to the actual ground directly below the antenna. To calculate the antenna height above average terrain (HAAT), the average elevation of the surrounding terrain above mean sea level must be determined along at least 8 evenly spaced radials at distances from 3 to 16 km from the transmitter site. The HAAT is the difference between the antenna height above mean sea level (the antenna height above ground plus the site elevation) and the average elevation of the surrounding terrain. 67. In reexamining this issue, we also note that the rules currently do not indicate that fixed device antenna heights must be provided to the database for use in determining available channels. It was
Re: [WISPA] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND
But if they become licensed you have to also protect the first adjacent channel for that licensed link. That would remove 3 channels from the available white space and to get that proposed licensed link they also have to protect the first adjacent channels of the incumbents. Remember when we talk white spaces it really means 3 channels for every high power WISP deployment or existing licensed user of the band. Protecting first adjacent channels really narrows the number of channels available. When you also look at the power levels they are asking for with only 24 degree beam width antennas, they have the potential to pollute a lot of spectrum over HUGE geographic areas. Take too much of the spectrum away for WISP use and you won't have any manufacturers building equipment because the market potential will be too small. Go to the spectrum bridge web site and play around with their on line tool to investigate white spaces. If you find an area you think you would use for white spaces, click on the channel you want. If there are no contours overlapping the area you are PARTWAY there. You then need to add the upper and lower channels (first adjacent) to the map to see if any of those contours overlap the areas you want to serve. IF you still have clean area great. You would be able to deploy...but wait..you become a successful WISP in this area and then Sprint/FiberTower comes along and licenses any one of those three channels you had that were clear. Guess what...you have to turn off your system because they are licensed and you are notgreat way to knock competitors out of business. TV stations don't just pop up like that but backhauls could. Brian From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:05 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND At 9/23/2010 03:43 PM, you wrote: Hmm... looks like we need to keep up the good fight: I know this is out of line with the WISPA consensus, but it seems to me that if there are more than 10 white space channels in a given area, then letting Part 101 point-to-point operations share them could be in our best interests. Backhaul for WISPs is often very expensive, so a couple of channels (for FDD) of UHF backhaul could be just the ticket. Of course these should be available to any qualified Part 101 applicant, not just a CMRS licensee. If this were allowed to the extent that it displaced PtMP operation, then of course it would be bad, but it might make more sense to suggest some numbers, like 2 channels out of (a minimum white space of) 10, and one out of every additional 2, so if there were 20 channels, 7 would be allowed for PtP and 13 for PtMP. Finally, it is important that we address additional proposals to set aside TV channels in rural areas for fixed licensed backhaul in the very near future. The ability of both new and incumbent wireless providers to provide 4G wireless services ubiquitously is dependent upon a robust wireless infrastructure that is too often lacking in rural areas. 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/ -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consultinghttp://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 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] Transmit Antenna Height
If you are on a high mountain and there are also a lot of other high locations around you your HAAT number could still be low. If however you are on a high mountain and the rest of the area all the way around your site is much lower, your HAAT figure will go up. Sites built on side hill locations with the hill rising above in part of the radius will greatly reduce the HAAT number. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/haat_calculator.html How is the HAAT determined? A HAAT value is determined by taking 50 evenly spaced elevation points (above mean sea level [AMSL]) along at least 8 evenly spaced radials from the transmitter site (starting at 0 degrees [True North]). The 50 evenly spaced points are sampled in the segment between 3 to 16 km (formerly 2 to 10 miles) along each radial. The elevation points along each radial are averaged, then the radial averages are averaged to provide the final HAAT value. Terrain variations within 3 km (2 miles) of the transmitter site usually do not have a great impact on station coverage. Brian From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height This item alone may be the show-stopper, the poison pill that makes it useless to WISPs in much of the country. In places where the routine variation in elevation is more than 75 meters, there will be houses (subscribers) that are more than 76 meters AAT. I notice this in the areas I'm studying, both in the east and in the upper midwest. In a place like Kansas, nobody is 75m AAT. But in the woody Berkshires of Western Massachusetts, the UHF space is needed to get through the trees, and a significant share of houses are 75m AAT. Also, if you want to cover a decent radius, the access point needs to be up the hill too. 75 meters isn't a mountaintop; it's just a little rise. It makes no sense to absolutely ban fixed use at a site that is 100m AAT if the nearest protected-service contour is, say, 50 miles away. A more sensible rule would be to follow broadcast practice, and lower the ERP based on height, so that the distance to a given signal strength contour is held constant as the height rises. Hence a Class A FM station is allowed up to 15 miles, and if it is more than 300 feet AAT, then it is allowed less than the 3000 watts ERP that apply at lower heights. Maybe the lawyers want to have more petitions to argue over. At 9/23/2010 04:07 PM, Rich Harnish wrote: 65. Decision. We decline to increase the maximum permitted transmit antenna height above ground for fixed TV bands devices. As the Commission stated in the Second Report and Order, the 30 meters above ground limit was established as a balance between the benefits of increasing TV bands device transmission range and the need to minimize the impact on licensed services.129 Consistent with the Commission's stated approach in the Second Report and Order of taking a conservative approach in protecting authorized services, we find the prudent course of action is to maintain the previously adopted height limit. If, in the future, experience with TV bands devices indicates that these devices could operate at higher transmit heights without causing interference, the Commission could revisit the height limit. 66. While we expect that specifying a limit on antenna height above ground rather than above average terrain is satisfactory for controlling interference to authorized services in the majority of cases, we also recognize petitioners' concerns about the increased potential for interference in instances where a fixed TV bands device antenna is located on a local geographic high point such as a hill or mountain.130 In such cases, the distance at which a TV bands device signal could propagate would be significantly increased, thus increasing the potential for interference to authorized operations in the TV bands. We therefore conclude that it is necessary to modify our rules to limit the antenna HAAT of a fixed device as well as its antenna height above ground. In considering a limit for antenna HAAT, we need to balance the concerns for long range propagation from high points against the typical variability of ground height that occurs in areas where there are significant local high points - we do not want to preclude fixed devices from a large number of sites in areas where there are rolling hills or a large number of relatively high points that do not generally provide open, line-of-sight paths for propagation over long distances. We find that limiting the fixed device antenna HAAT to 106 meters (350 feet), as calculated by the TV bands database, provides an appropriate balance of these concerns. We will therefore restrict fixed TV bands devices from operating at locations where the HAAT of the ground is greater than 76 meters; this will allow use of an antenna at a height of up to
Re: [WISPA] Referral Programs
We actually mail a check for $25 to the person who referred. The check in hand is a physical reminder of the referral. We feel that this is better than the nebulous credit they really don't see or interact with. On 09/23/2010 06:59 AM, Jeremy Rodgers wrote: We are looking into creating a solid referral program. Does anyone have input on what has worked well and what hasn't? We were thinking of a free month of service for the new customer and referring one. Is this too much? Any thoughts? -- *Jeremy J. Rodgers* Sales Manager OnlyInternet Broadband and Wireless O: 260.827.2234 O: 800.363.0989 F: 260.824.9624 …But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD. Joshua 24:15 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] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND
I believe the FCC has another proceeding for freeing up 750 MHz of white space in other bands for backhaul purposes. I believe 6 and 13 GHz. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 9/23/2010 3:04 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 9/23/2010 03:43 PM, you wrote: Hmm... looks like we need to keep up the good fight: I know this is out of line with the WISPA consensus, but it seems to me that if there are more than 10 white space channels in a given area, then letting Part 101 point-to-point operations share them could be in our best interests. Backhaul for WISPs is often very expensive, so a couple of channels (for FDD) of UHF backhaul could be just the ticket. Of course these should be available to any qualified Part 101 applicant, not just a CMRS licensee. If this were allowed to the extent that it displaced PtMP operation, then of course it would be bad, but it might make more sense to suggest some numbers, like 2 channels out of (a minimum white space of) 10, and one out of every additional 2, so if there were 20 channels, 7 would be allowed for PtP and 13 for PtMP. Finally, it is important that we address additional proposals to set aside TV channels in rural areas for fixed licensed backhaul in the very near future. The ability of both new and incumbent wireless providers to provide 4G wireless services ubiquitously is dependent upon a robust wireless infrastructure that is too often lacking in rural areas. 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/ -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 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] Referral Programs
We did a 50/50 Referral Program for our Customers... $50 for the person Referring $50 for the person being referred. You can change the amount to suit. Our logic was, both sides should get the incentive, especially when folks were referring friends, or professionals referring others. There is no one sided guilt either both sides got the discount or no-one ! ... Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 9/23/2010 5:19 PM, Matt Jenkins wrote: We actually mail a check for $25 to the person who referred. The check in hand is a physical reminder of the referral. We feel that this is better than the nebulous credit they really don't see or interact with. On 09/23/2010 06:59 AM, Jeremy Rodgers wrote: We are looking into creating a solid referral program. Does anyone have input on what has worked well and what hasn't? We were thinking of a free month of service for the new customer and referring one. Is this too much? Any thoughts? -- *Jeremy J. Rodgers* Sales Manager OnlyInternet Broadband and Wireless O: 260.827.2234 O: 800.363.0989 F: 260.824.9624 …But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD. Joshua 24:15 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/
Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
They listed all fixed devices must be below 75 meters HAAT. A lot of customers fixed CPE could be well above that as well. On 09/23/2010 01:50 PM, Brian Webster wrote: If you are on a high mountain and there are also a lot of other high locations around you your HAAT number could still be low. If however you are on a high mountain and the rest of the area all the way around your site is much lower, your HAAT figure will go up. Sites built on side hill locations with the hill rising above in part of the radius will greatly reduce the HAAT number. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/haat_calculator.html How is the HAAT determined? A HAAT value is determined by taking 50 evenly spaced elevation points (above mean sea level [AMSL]) along at least 8 evenly spaced radials from the transmitter site (starting at 0 degrees [True North]). The 50 evenly spaced points are sampled in the segment between 3 to 16 km (formerly 2 to 10 miles) along each radial. The elevation points along each radial are averaged, then the radial averages are averaged to provide the final HAAT value. Terrain variations within 3 km (2 miles) of the transmitter site usually do not have a great impact on station coverage. Brian *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Fred Goldstein *Sent:* Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:36 PM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height This item alone may be the show-stopper, the poison pill that makes it useless to WISPs in much of the country. In places where the routine variation in elevation is more than 75 meters, there will be houses (subscribers) that are more than 76 meters AAT. I notice this in the areas I'm studying, both in the east and in the upper midwest. In a place like Kansas, nobody is 75m AAT. But in the woody Berkshires of Western Massachusetts, the UHF space is needed to get through the trees, and a significant share of houses are 75m AAT. Also, if you want to cover a decent radius, the access point needs to be up the hill too. 75 meters isn't a mountaintop; it's just a little rise. It makes no sense to absolutely ban fixed use at a site that is 100m AAT if the nearest protected-service contour is, say, 50 miles away. A more sensible rule would be to follow broadcast practice, and lower the ERP based on height, so that the distance to a given signal strength contour is held constant as the height rises. Hence a Class A FM station is allowed up to 15 miles, and if it is more than 300 feet AAT, then it is allowed less than the 3000 watts ERP that apply at lower heights. Maybe the lawyers want to have more petitions to argue over. At 9/23/2010 04:07 PM, Rich Harnish wrote: 65. /Decision. /We decline to increase the maximum permitted transmit antenna height above ground for fixed TV bands devices. As the Commission stated in the /Second Report and Order/, the 30 meters above ground limit was established as a balance between the benefits of increasing TV bands device transmission range and the need to minimize the impact on licensed services.129 Consistent with the Commission’s stated approach in the /Second Report and Order /of taking a conservative approach in protecting authorized services, we find the prudent course of action is to maintain the previously adopted height limit. If, in the future, experience with TV bands devices indicates that these devices could operate at higher transmit heights without causing interference, the Commission could revisit the height limit. 66. While we expect that specifying a limit on antenna height above ground rather than above average terrain is satisfactory for controlling interference to authorized services in the majority of cases, we also recognize petitioners’ concerns about the increased potential for interference in instances where a fixed TV bands device antenna is located on a local geographic high point such as a hill or mountain.130 In such cases, the distance at which a TV bands device signal could propagate would be significantly increased, thus increasing the potential for interference to authorized operations in the TV bands. We therefore conclude that it is necessary to modify our rules to limit the antenna HAAT of a fixed device as well as its antenna height above ground. In considering a limit for antenna HAAT, we need to balance the concerns for long range propagation from high points against the typical variability of ground height that occurs in areas where there are significant local high points – we do not want to preclude fixed devices from a large number of sites in areas where there are rolling hills or a large number of relatively high points that do not generally provide open, line-of-sight paths for propagation over long distances. We find that limiting the fixed device antenna HAAT to 106 meters
Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
At 9/23/2010 04:50 PM, Brian Webster wrote: If you are on a high mountain and there are also a lot of other high locations around you your HAAT number could still be low. If however you are on a high mountain and the rest of the area all the way around your site is much lower, your HAAT figure will go up. Sites built on side hill locations with the hill rising above in part of the radius will greatly reduce the HAAT number. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/haat_calculator.htmlhttp://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/haat_calculator.html A subscriber's house is wherever it is, and under the new rule, they are just not allowed to subscribe if it is more than 76 meters AAT. This doesn't have to be on top of the high mountain. If you have RadioMobile, you can click around some potential sites and use its US-mode HAAT function. I found a lot of places that would be shut out. Try the hill towns in Berkshire County, MA, or just to its east, so see what I mean. Heck, these are so hilly and woody that the VHF channels look most attractive. (Not that they're available; only one upper-VHF is actually vacant there.) Only a handful of channels meet the white space criteria there to begin with. I have the FCC's contours showing in MapInfo so I can click anywhere on its map and see which contours I'm within. And of course for co-channel, I have to look for contours about 10 miles beyond. If a significant number of subscribers are shut out, not to mention the necessary access points to reach them, then we're stuck again on 900 MHz, which is pretty busy. So even with a white space access point to reach the low houses, we'd need the 900 too to reach the high houses. How silly. How is the HAAT determined? A HAAT value is determined by taking 50 evenly spaced elevation points (above mean sea level [AMSL]) along at least 8 evenly spaced radials from the transmitter site (starting at 0 degrees [True North]). The 50 evenly spaced points are sampled in the segment between 3 to 16 km (formerly 2 to 10 miles) along each radial. The elevation points along each radial are averaged, then the radial averages are averaged to provide the final HAAT value. Terrain variations within 3 km (2 miles) of the transmitter site usually do not have a great impact on station coverage. Brian From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height This item alone may be the show-stopper, the poison pill that makes it useless to WISPs in much of the country. In places where the routine variation in elevation is more than 75 meters, there will be houses (subscribers) that are more than 76 meters AAT. I notice this in the areas I'm studying, both in the east and in the upper midwest. In a place like Kansas, nobody is 75m AAT. But in the woody Berkshires of Western Massachusetts, the UHF space is needed to get through the trees, and a significant share of houses are 75m AAT. Also, if you want to cover a decent radius, the access point needs to be up the hill too. 75 meters isn't a mountaintop; it's just a little rise. It makes no sense to absolutely ban fixed use at a site that is 100m AAT if the nearest protected-service contour is, say, 50 miles away. A more sensible rule would be to follow broadcast practice, and lower the ERP based on height, so that the distance to a given signal strength contour is held constant as the height rises. Hence a Class A FM station is allowed up to 15 miles, and if it is more than 300 feet AAT, then it is allowed less than the 3000 watts ERP that apply at lower heights. Maybe the lawyers want to have more petitions to argue over. At 9/23/2010 04:07 PM, Rich Harnish wrote: 65. Decision. We decline to increase the maximum permitted transmit antenna height above ground for fixed TV bands devices. As the Commission stated in the Second Report and Order, the 30 meters above ground limit was established as a balance between the benefits of increasing TV bands device transmission range and the need to minimize the impact on licensed services.129 Consistent with the Commission's stated approach in the Second Report and Order of taking a conservative approach in protecting authorized services, we find the prudent course of action is to maintain the previously adopted height limit. If, in the future, experience with TV bands devices indicates that these devices could operate at higher transmit heights without causing interference, the Commission could revisit the height limit. 66. While we expect that specifying a limit on antenna height above ground rather than above average terrain is satisfactory for controlling interference to authorized services in the majority of cases, we also recognize petitioners' concerns about the increased potential for interference in
Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
Especially since the 900 works in the low areas where you can shut out the noise using the terrain. On 09/23/2010 02:34 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 9/23/2010 04:50 PM, Brian Webster wrote: If you are on a high mountain and there are also a lot of other high locations around you your HAAT number could still be low. If however you are on a high mountain and the rest of the area all the way around your site is much lower, your HAAT figure will go up. Sites built on side hill locations with the hill rising above in part of the radius will greatly reduce the HAAT number. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/haat_calculator.html A subscriber's house is wherever it is, and under the new rule, they are just not allowed to subscribe if it is more than 76 meters AAT. This doesn't have to be on top of the high mountain. If you have RadioMobile, you can click around some potential sites and use its US-mode HAAT function. I found a lot of places that would be shut out. Try the hill towns in Berkshire County, MA, or just to its east, so see what I mean. Heck, these are so hilly and woody that the VHF channels look most attractive. (Not that they're available; only one upper-VHF is actually vacant there.) Only a handful of channels meet the white space criteria there to begin with. I have the FCC's contours showing in MapInfo so I can click anywhere on its map and see which contours I'm within. And of course for co-channel, I have to look for contours about 10 miles beyond. If a significant number of subscribers are shut out, not to mention the necessary access points to reach them, then we're stuck again on 900 MHz, which is pretty busy. So even with a white space access point to reach the low houses, we'd need the 900 too to reach the high houses. How silly. How is the HAAT determined? A HAAT value is determined by taking 50 evenly spaced elevation points (above mean sea level [AMSL]) along at least 8 evenly spaced radials from the transmitter site (starting at 0 degrees [True North]). The 50 evenly spaced points are sampled in the segment between 3 to 16 km (formerly 2 to 10 miles) along each radial. The elevation points along each radial are averaged, then the radial averages are averaged to provide the final HAAT value. Terrain variations within 3 km (2 miles) of the transmitter site usually do not have a great impact on station coverage. Brian *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [ mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Fred Goldstein *Sent:* Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:36 PM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height This item alone may be the show-stopper, the poison pill that makes it useless to WISPs in much of the country. In places where the routine variation in elevation is more than 75 meters, there will be houses (subscribers) that are more than 76 meters AAT. I notice this in the areas I'm studying, both in the east and in the upper midwest. In a place like Kansas, nobody is 75m AAT. But in the woody Berkshires of Western Massachusetts, the UHF space is needed to get through the trees, and a significant share of houses are 75m AAT. Also, if you want to cover a decent radius, the access point needs to be up the hill too. 75 meters isn't a mountaintop; it's just a little rise. It makes no sense to absolutely ban fixed use at a site that is 100m AAT if the nearest protected-service contour is, say, 50 miles away. A more sensible rule would be to follow broadcast practice, and lower the ERP based on height, so that the distance to a given signal strength contour is held constant as the height rises. Hence a Class A FM station is allowed up to 15 miles, and if it is more than 300 feet AAT, then it is allowed less than the 3000 watts ERP that apply at lower heights. Maybe the lawyers want to have more petitions to argue over. At 9/23/2010 04:07 PM, Rich Harnish wrote: 65. /Decision. /We decline to increase the maximum permitted transmit antenna height above ground for fixed TV bands devices. As the Commission stated in the /Second Report and Order/, the 30 meters above ground limit was established as a balance between the benefits of increasing TV bands device transmission range and the need to minimize the impact on licensed services.129 Consistent with the Commission’s stated approach in the /Second Report and Order /of taking a conservative approach in protecting authorized services, we find the prudent course of action is to maintain the previously adopted height limit. If, in the future, experience with TV bands devices indicates that these devices could operate at higher transmit heights without causing interference, the Commission could revisit the height limit. 66. While we expect that specifying a limit on antenna height above ground rather than above average terrain is satisfactory for controlling
Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
Make sure to comment to the fcc about this. Get involved and ensure your voice is heard. Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 9/23/2010 04:50 PM, Brian Webster wrote: If you are on a high mountain and there are also a lot of other high locations around you your HAAT number could still be low. If however you are on a high mountain and the rest of the area all the way around your site is much lower, your HAAT figure will go up. Sites built on side hill locations with the hill rising above in part of the radius will greatly reduce the HAAT number. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/haat_calculator.htmlhttp://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/haat_calculator.html A subscriber's house is wherever it is, and under the new rule, they are just not allowed to subscribe if it is more than 76 meters AAT. This doesn't have to be on top of the high mountain. If you have RadioMobile, you can click around some potential sites and use its US-mode HAAT function. I found a lot of places that would be shut out. Try the hill towns in Berkshire County, MA, or just to its east, so see what I mean. Heck, these are so hilly and woody that the VHF channels look most attractive. (Not that they're available; only one upper-VHF is actually vacant there.) Only a handful of channels meet the white space criteria there to begin with. I have the FCC's contours showing in MapInfo so I can click anywhere on its map and see which contours I'm within. And of course for co-channel, I have to look for contours about 10 miles beyond. If a significant number of subscribers are shut out, not to mention the necessary access points to reach them, then we're stuck again on 900 MHz, which is pretty busy. So even with a white space access point to reach the low houses, we'd need the 900 too to reach the high houses. How silly. How is the HAAT determined? A HAAT value is determined by taking 50 evenly spaced elevation points (above mean sea level [AMSL]) along at least 8 evenly spaced radials from the transmitter site (starting at 0 degrees [True North]). The 50 evenly spaced points are sampled in the segment between 3 to 16 km (formerly 2 to 10 miles) along each radial. The elevation points along each radial are averaged, then the radial averages are averaged to provide the final HAAT value. Terrain variations within 3 km (2 miles) of the transmitter site usually do not have a great impact on station coverage. Brian From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height This item alone may be the show-stopper, the poison pill that makes it useless to WISPs in much of the country. In places where the routine variation in elevation is more than 75 meters, there will be houses (subscribers) that are more than 76 meters AAT. I notice this in the areas I'm studying, both in the east and in the upper midwest. In a place like Kansas, nobody is 75m AAT. But in the woody Berkshires of Western Massachusetts, the UHF space is needed to get through the trees, and a significant share of houses are 75m AAT. Also, if you want to cover a decent radius, the access point needs to be up the hill too. 75 meters isn't a mountaintop; it's just a little rise. It makes no sense to absolutely ban fixed use at a site that is 100m AAT if the nearest protected-service contour is, say, 50 miles away. A more sensible rule would be to follow broadcast practice, and lower the ERP based on height, so that the distance to a given signal strength contour is held constant as the height rises. Hence a Class A FM station is allowed up to 15 miles, and if it is more than 300 feet AAT, then it is allowed less than the 3000 watts ERP that apply at lower heights. Maybe the lawyers want to have more petitions to argue over. At 9/23/2010 04:07 PM, Rich Harnish wrote: 65. Decision. We decline to increase the maximum permitted transmit antenna height above ground for fixed TV bands devices. As the Commission stated in the Second Report and Order, the 30 meters above ground limit was established as a balance between the benefits of increasing TV bands device transmission range and the need to minimize the impact on licensed services.129 Consistent with the Commission's stated approach in the Second Report and Order of taking a conservative approach in protecting authorized services, we find the prudent course of action is to maintain the previously adopted height limit. If, in the future, experience with TV bands devices indicates that these devices could operate at higher transmit heights without causing interference, the Commission could revisit the height limit. 66. While we expect that specifying a limit on antenna height above ground rather than above average terrain is satisfactory for controlling interference to authorized services
[WISPA] Today is a Momentous Day for our Industry - Sept. 23rd, 2010
Today's FCC decision to open up the TV Whitespaces for unlicensed operations is a decision that validates the WISP industry, WISPA, it's members and the grassroots efforts we have achieved since our birth in 2004. I would like to thank all of the WISP operators who have joined this movement and have supported our efforts to improve our industry's stake in the Broadband Service business landscape. WISPA isn't a business; it is a well defined association of member companies that have common interests and a drive to improve their businesses. It is quite remarkable what we can all do when we combine our forces. Today's MO on the TV Whitespaces included WISPA 88 times! We (WISPA) are now a household name with most of the lobbying groups (both opposition and supporters) in the broadband industry, the FCC and many legislators. We still need to work on the legislative lobbying effort and that will take each of our members to write to their congressman and senators, meet them personally and tell them our stories and successes. Although it may be out of many operator's comfort zone, it should be noted that they (legislators) all get up and get dressed every morning just like you and I. They are often former neighbors and have a passion to serve their local service areas, just like we do. We need to befriend these influential people and relay our passion to extend broadband ubiquitously. We estimate there are 2000-3000 WISPs in the USA. Nearly 400 have joined and support WISPA. We can further benefit our industry with greater participation from those who continue to sit on the sidelines. We invite those WISPs to join the rest of the operators by joining WISPA at http://signup.wispa.org. By joining WISPA, you become a co-owner of WISPA with all of the other members. Incidentally, I just received a call from Francois Menard, a very astute operator in Canada, who will be joining WISPA very soon. He thanked WISPA for our hard work and he would like to get a similar organization started in Canada or get more Canadian WISP companies to join WISPA. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot duplicate what we have achieved to assist our neighbors to the north with greater effectiveness. The telecom world is heating up, debate is dynamic and everlasting! Our work and lobbying continues or we will fade away through legislation without representation. We MUST speak up to hold our ground and seek new fertile ground. I work hard each day to stimulate the industry I so dearly love. I invite you to join our efforts. The technical talk is fine and needed, but without a playing field to place the infrastructure and achieve business success, the technical talk is all a moot point. Respectfully, Rick Harnish Executive Director WISPA 260-307-4000 cell 866-317-2851 WISPA Office Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org 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] Referral Programs
Same here but we give $25 off the install fee as well. On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Matt Jenkins m...@smarterbroadband.netwrote: We actually mail a check for $25 to the person who referred. The check in hand is a physical reminder of the referral. We feel that this is better than the nebulous credit they really don't see or interact with. On 09/23/2010 06:59 AM, Jeremy Rodgers wrote: We are looking into creating a solid referral program. Does anyone have input on what has worked well and what hasn't? We were thinking of a free month of service for the new customer and referring one. Is this too much? Any thoughts? -- *Jeremy J. Rodgers* Sales Manager OnlyInternet Broadband and Wireless O: 260.827.2234 O: 800.363.0989 F: 260.824.9624 …But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD. Joshua 24:15 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/
Re: [WISPA] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND
Sorry guys, Where does the FCC document speak of additional spectrum in the 3GHz band ??? F. On 2010-09-23, at 3:43 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote: Hmm... looks like we need to keep up the good fight: Finally, it is important that we address additional proposals to set aside TV channels in rural areas for fixed licensed backhaul in the very near future. The ability of both new and incumbent wireless providers to provide 4G wireless services ubiquitously is dependent upon a robust wireless infrastructure that is too often lacking in rural areas. 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/ -- Francois D. Menard Project Manager Xit telecom inc. 1350 Royale #800 Trois-Rivieres, QC, G9A 4J4 Canada Tel: +1 819 601-6633 Fax: +1 819 374-0395 fmen...@xittelecom.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] nanostation and canopy towers within 2 miles of each other
Marco, Be aware of one very important principle when deploying Ubiquiti MIMO With them, you can NOT disable either of the polarities, both polarities always hear noise. In mode 8-15, double the capacity is acheived, each pol with unique data. Even in Modes 0-7 (single chain), I believe the same signal gets transmitted across both pols, and listens on both pols for same signal. The benefit of this is more resilience to multi-path fade, and a theoretical 3db increase in power on the receive. The negative of this is that the noise from BOTH polarities is heard. So... Lets say Horizontal pol is noise free, but verticle pol is full of noise. There is no way to steer around the noise on verticle pol. There is no way to select using Horizontal pol only without the noise of the verticle antenna heard. SO How does this apply to Co-existence with Canopy bearby? Well, most Canopy APs use Verticle polarity only. Therefore, the Canopies tower will likely use most of the Verticle polarity channels, and your ubiquitis will likely hear a lot more noise on Verticle channels. If you used equipment that was a single pol design, you'd be able to select Horizontal pol only, and you'd be able to steer around the Canopy easily. With Mimo Ubiquiti, you wont have that option anymore. As well, the Canopy user is locked to 20Mhz channels, and wont be able to make room for you that way either. So... you should be prepared that you are likely going to be fighting interference with the Canopy users. The Canopy user will have one advantage, they'll only need 3db SNR to survive your noise, where you'll need atleast 8-10db SNR to survive their noise. (Ubiquiti would work better at 18-25db SNR). You will have two advantages though One, your Ubiquitis can be set to 10Mhz channels, adjustable in 5Mhz increasments, to find the holes between the Canopy's selected channels. Two, the Ubiquitis are higher power. You'll be able to go up to 24-26dbm at the CPE (depending on modulation), where Canopy may be limited to 22dbm, and Ubiquiti has more flexible CPE options to choose higher gain antennas, if needed. If the Canopy tower is two miles away, you should be able to carefully select your channel plan to avoid interference, but noise at your tower will still be a big concern to avoid. I'd highly recommend that you go all out on the Ubiquiti Tower, and in addition to using the UBiquiti Antennas, use the custom third party shields made for them to increase the Front/Back isolation of the antennas. These Ubiquiti Radio are really really sweet. And their wireless dirver appear to handle noise well. But its still all about the math, and with Ubiquiti MIMO, it does hear MORE noise, because of the dual pol design. Note, if you ever run into trouble where there the Verticle pol noise is to severe for the AP It is possible to select single chain mode 0-7, and cap the verticle pol antenna port on the radio (disconnect verticle pol antenna feed), then your radio would just hear on Horizontal pol. (I believe Chain0 is Horizontal pol, from what we've determined, but you'd need to confirm that yourself). However, I can not vouge for whether there would be any long term harm to the radio because of that, meaning whether it would hurt to operate the radio without an antenna load on the second chain polarity. But we've operated successfully like that at some sights for a while. Another technique that can help is to point only one 120 degree antenna in the direction of the Canopy tower. The mentality here is to send the very least amount of noise and channel usage in their direction. It will be easier for the Canopy tower to vacate and leave a single channel for your use, in that direction. Anything you point at them could interfere with them, and vice versa, so reduce the number of channels pointed to them. Most ISPs can spare a channel, but cant spare many. So give them a solution for non-interference, that impacts them the least. They were there first, and would likely protect their turf, the last thing you want is a noise battle with a 3db SNR TDD radio. The Ubiquiti freq scanner works well, to find the best free channel to use for each of your sectors. That will come in handy, determining what channels are being used by the Canopy. . Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Marco Coelho coelh...@gmail.com To: motor...@afmug.org; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 12:57 PM Subject: [WISPA] nanostation and canopy towers within 2 miles of each other I've got a competitor getting ready to light a nanostation based tower within 2 miles of one of my Canopy 2.4 towers. What kind of interference should I expect? Listening to this guy, their radios are magic and can shoot through trees and over hills. Totally overcoming line of site issues. Is he smoking something strange?
Re: [WISPA] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND
I've wondered that as well, but the proceeding has been ongoing for the better part of a decade, so it's quite possible that the 3 GHz section is the 2650 band that has already been open for years. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 9/23/2010 5:15 PM, Francois Menard wrote: Sorry guys, Where does the FCC document speak of additional spectrum in the 3GHz band ??? F. On 2010-09-23, at 3:43 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote: Hmm... looks like we need to keep up the good fight: Finally, it is important that we address additional proposals to set aside TV channels in rural areas for fixed licensed backhaul in the very near future. The ability of both new and incumbent wireless providers to provide 4G wireless services ubiquitously is dependent upon a robust wireless infrastructure that is too often lacking in rural areas. 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/ -- Francois D. Menard Project Manager Xit telecom inc. 1350 Royale #800 Trois-Rivieres, QC, G9A 4J4 Canada Tel: +1 819 601-6633 Fax: +1 819 374-0395 fmen...@xittelecom.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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] Transmit Antenna Height
Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick forest/trees easilly 70ft tall. A 90ft height, just wouldn't allow enough of the signal to have open air, and the signal would be going through trees most of the full path. In 900Mhz, the difference between having the tower side over the tree line and below the tree line can be the difference between a quarter mile coverage and a 7 mile coverage in our market. All be it, 700Mhz does have better NLOS propogation characteristics than 900 does. I would have liked to see that height doubled. However, admittedly, it will allow much better spectrum re-use in areas that have a limited number of channels available. Spectrum reuse is one of the best ways to serve more people. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height This item alone may be the show-stopper, the poison pill that makes it useless to WISPs in much of the country. In places where the routine variation in elevation is more than 75 meters, there will be houses (subscribers) that are more than 76 meters AAT. I notice this in the areas I'm studying, both in the east and in the upper midwest. In a place like Kansas, nobody is 75m AAT. But in the woody Berkshires of Western Massachusetts, the UHF space is needed to get through the trees, and a significant share of houses are 75m AAT. Also, if you want to cover a decent radius, the access point needs to be up the hill too. 75 meters isn't a mountaintop; it's just a little rise. It makes no sense to absolutely ban fixed use at a site that is 100m AAT if the nearest protected-service contour is, say, 50 miles away. A more sensible rule would be to follow broadcast practice, and lower the ERP based on height, so that the distance to a given signal strength contour is held constant as the height rises. Hence a Class A FM station is allowed up to 15 miles, and if it is more than 300 feet AAT, then it is allowed less than the 3000 watts ERP that apply at lower heights. Maybe the lawyers want to have more petitions to argue over. At 9/23/2010 04:07 PM, Rich Harnish wrote: 65. Decision. We decline to increase the maximum permitted transmit antenna height above ground for fixed TV bands devices. As the Commission stated in the Second Report and Order, the 30 meters above ground limit was established as a balance between the benefits of increasing TV bands device transmission range and the need to minimize the impact on licensed services.129 Consistent with the Commission's stated approach in the Second Report and Order of taking a conservative approach in protecting authorized services, we find the prudent course of action is to maintain the previously adopted height limit. If, in the future, experience with TV bands devices indicates that these devices could operate at higher transmit heights without causing interference, the Commission could revisit the height limit. 66. While we expect that specifying a limit on antenna height above ground rather than above average terrain is satisfactory for controlling interference to authorized services in the majority of cases, we also recognize petitioners' concerns about the increased potential for interference in instances where a fixed TV bands device antenna is located on a local geographic high point such as a hill or mountain.130 In such cases, the distance at which a TV bands device signal could propagate would be significantly increased, thus increasing the potential for interference to authorized operations in the TV bands. We therefore conclude that it is necessary to modify our rules to limit the antenna HAAT of a fixed device as well as its antenna height above ground. In considering a limit for antenna HAAT, we need to balance the concerns for long range propagation from high points against the typical variability of ground height that occurs in areas where there are significant local high points - we do not want to preclude fixed devices from a large number of sites in areas where there are rolling hills or a large number of relatively high points that do not generally provide open, line-of-sight paths for propagation over long distances. We find that limiting the fixed device antenna HAAT to 106 meters (350 feet), as calculated by the TV bands database, provides an appropriate balance of these concerns. We will therefore restrict fixed TV bands devices from operating at locations where the HAAT of the ground is greater than 76 meters; this will allow use of an antenna at a height of up to 30 meters above ground level to provide an antenna HAAT of 106 meters. Accordingly, we are specifying that a fixed TV bands device antenna may not be located at a site where the ground HAAT is greater than 75 meters
Re: [WISPA] nanostation and canopy towers within 2 miles of each other
Canopy C/I numbers: ~3dB @ 2 Level FSK, ~10dB @ 4 Level FSK The 430 series didn't list its C/I. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 9/23/2010 6:03 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Marco, Be aware of one very important principle when deploying Ubiquiti MIMO With them, you can NOT disable either of the polarities, both polarities always hear noise. In mode 8-15, double the capacity is acheived, each pol with unique data. Even in Modes 0-7 (single chain), I believe the same signal gets transmitted across both pols, and listens on both pols for same signal. The benefit of this is more resilience to multi-path fade, and a theoretical 3db increase in power on the receive. The negative of this is that the noise from BOTH polarities is heard. So... Lets say Horizontal pol is noise free, but verticle pol is full of noise. There is no way to steer around the noise on verticle pol. There is no way to select using Horizontal pol only without the noise of the verticle antenna heard. SO How does this apply to Co-existence with Canopy bearby? Well, most Canopy APs use Verticle polarity only. Therefore, the Canopies tower will likely use most of the Verticle polarity channels, and your ubiquitis will likely hear a lot more noise on Verticle channels. If you used equipment that was a single pol design, you'd be able to select Horizontal pol only, and you'd be able to steer around the Canopy easily. With Mimo Ubiquiti, you wont have that option anymore. As well, the Canopy user is locked to 20Mhz channels, and wont be able to make room for you that way either. So... you should be prepared that you are likely going to be fighting interference with the Canopy users. The Canopy user will have one advantage, they'll only need 3db SNR to survive your noise, where you'll need atleast 8-10db SNR to survive their noise. (Ubiquiti would work better at 18-25db SNR). You will have two advantages though One, your Ubiquitis can be set to 10Mhz channels, adjustable in 5Mhz increasments, to find the holes between the Canopy's selected channels. Two, the Ubiquitis are higher power. You'll be able to go up to 24-26dbm at the CPE (depending on modulation), where Canopy may be limited to 22dbm, and Ubiquiti has more flexible CPE options to choose higher gain antennas, if needed. If the Canopy tower is two miles away, you should be able to carefully select your channel plan to avoid interference, but noise at your tower will still be a big concern to avoid. I'd highly recommend that you go all out on the Ubiquiti Tower, and in addition to using the UBiquiti Antennas, use the custom third party shields made for them to increase the Front/Back isolation of the antennas. These Ubiquiti Radio are really really sweet. And their wireless dirver appear to handle noise well. But its still all about the math, and with Ubiquiti MIMO, it does hear MORE noise, because of the dual pol design. Note, if you ever run into trouble where there the Verticle pol noise is to severe for the AP It is possible to select single chain mode 0-7, and cap the verticle pol antenna port on the radio (disconnect verticle pol antenna feed), then your radio would just hear on Horizontal pol. (I believe Chain0 is Horizontal pol, from what we've determined, but you'd need to confirm that yourself). However, I can not vouge for whether there would be any long term harm to the radio because of that, meaning whether it would hurt to operate the radio without an antenna load on the second chain polarity. But we've operated successfully like that at some sights for a while. Another technique that can help is to point only one 120 degree antenna in the direction of the Canopy tower. The mentality here is to send the very least amount of noise and channel usage in their direction. It will be easier for the Canopy tower to vacate and leave a single channel for your use, in that direction. Anything you point at them could interfere with them, and vice versa, so reduce the number of channels pointed to them. Most ISPs can spare a channel, but cant spare many. So give them a solution for non-interference, that impacts them the least. They were there first, and would likely protect their turf, the last thing you want is a noise battle with a 3db SNR TDD radio. The Ubiquiti freq scanner works well, to find the best free channel to use for each of your sectors. That will come in handy, determining what channels are being used by the Canopy. . Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Marco Coelhocoelh...@gmail.com To:motor...@afmug.org; WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 12:57 PM Subject: [WISPA] nanostation and canopy towers within 2 miles of each other I've got a competitor getting ready to light a nanostation based tower within 2 miles of
Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
But what if you are able to use spectrum around 200 or 300 MHz? That certainly goes through trees. Brian From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick forest/trees easilly 70ft tall. A 90ft height, just wouldn't allow enough of the signal to have open air, and the signal would be going through trees most of the full path. In 900Mhz, the difference between having the tower side over the tree line and below the tree line can be the difference between a quarter mile coverage and a 7 mile coverage in our market. All be it, 700Mhz does have better NLOS propogation characteristics than 900 does. I would have liked to see that height doubled. However, admittedly, it will allow much better spectrum re-use in areas that have a limited number of channels available. Spectrum reuse is one of the best ways to serve more people. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Fred mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com Goldstein To: WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height This item alone may be the show-stopper, the poison pill that makes it useless to WISPs in much of the country. In places where the routine variation in elevation is more than 75 meters, there will be houses (subscribers) that are more than 76 meters AAT. I notice this in the areas I'm studying, both in the east and in the upper midwest. In a place like Kansas, nobody is 75m AAT. But in the woody Berkshires of Western Massachusetts, the UHF space is needed to get through the trees, and a significant share of houses are 75m AAT. Also, if you want to cover a decent radius, the access point needs to be up the hill too. 75 meters isn't a mountaintop; it's just a little rise. It makes no sense to absolutely ban fixed use at a site that is 100m AAT if the nearest protected-service contour is, say, 50 miles away. A more sensible rule would be to follow broadcast practice, and lower the ERP based on height, so that the distance to a given signal strength contour is held constant as the height rises. Hence a Class A FM station is allowed up to 15 miles, and if it is more than 300 feet AAT, then it is allowed less than the 3000 watts ERP that apply at lower heights. Maybe the lawyers want to have more petitions to argue over. At 9/23/2010 04:07 PM, Rich Harnish wrote: 65. Decision. We decline to increase the maximum permitted transmit antenna height above ground for fixed TV bands devices. As the Commission stated in the Second Report and Order, the 30 meters above ground limit was established as a balance between the benefits of increasing TV bands device transmission range and the need to minimize the impact on licensed services.129 Consistent with the Commission's stated approach in the Second Report and Order of taking a conservative approach in protecting authorized services, we find the prudent course of action is to maintain the previously adopted height limit. If, in the future, experience with TV bands devices indicates that these devices could operate at higher transmit heights without causing interference, the Commission could revisit the height limit. 66. While we expect that specifying a limit on antenna height above ground rather than above average terrain is satisfactory for controlling interference to authorized services in the majority of cases, we also recognize petitioners' concerns about the increased potential for interference in instances where a fixed TV bands device antenna is located on a local geographic high point such as a hill or mountain.130 In such cases, the distance at which a TV bands device signal could propagate would be significantly increased, thus increasing the potential for interference to authorized operations in the TV bands. We therefore conclude that it is necessary to modify our rules to limit the antenna HAAT of a fixed device as well as its antenna height above ground. In considering a limit for antenna HAAT, we need to balance the concerns for long range propagation from high points against the typical variability of ground height that occurs in areas where there are significant local high points - we do not want to preclude fixed devices from a large number of sites in areas where there are rolling hills or a large number of relatively high points that do not generally provide open, line-of-sight paths for propagation over long distances. We find that limiting the fixed device antenna HAAT to 106 meters (350 feet), as calculated by the TV bands database, provides an appropriate balance of these concerns. We will therefore restrict fixed TV bands devices from operating at locations
Re: [WISPA] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND
2650 bad? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 787.273.4143 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND I've wondered that as well, but the proceeding has been ongoing for the better part of a decade, so it's quite possible that the 3 GHz section is the 2650 band that has already been open for years. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 9/23/2010 5:15 PM, Francois Menard wrote: Sorry guys, Where does the FCC document speak of additional spectrum in the 3GHz band ??? F. On 2010-09-23, at 3:43 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote: Hmm... looks like we need to keep up the good fight: Finally, it is important that we address additional proposals to set aside TV channels in rural areas for fixed licensed backhaul in the very near future. The ability of both new and incumbent wireless providers to provide 4G wireless services ubiquitously is dependent upon a robust wireless infrastructure that is too often lacking in rural areas. 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/ -- Francois D. Menard Project Manager Xit telecom inc. 1350 Royale #800 Trois-Rivieres, QC, G9A 4J4 Canada Tel: +1 819 601-6633 Fax: +1 819 374-0395 fmen...@xittelecom.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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] nanostation and canopy towers within 2 miles of each other
From the 10.4 release notes Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 787.273.4143 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] nanostation and canopy towers within 2 miles of each other Canopy C/I numbers: ~3dB @ 2 Level FSK, ~10dB @ 4 Level FSK The 430 series didn't list its C/I. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 9/23/2010 6:03 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Marco, Be aware of one very important principle when deploying Ubiquiti MIMO With them, you can NOT disable either of the polarities, both polarities always hear noise. In mode 8-15, double the capacity is acheived, each pol with unique data. Even in Modes 0-7 (single chain), I believe the same signal gets transmitted across both pols, and listens on both pols for same signal. The benefit of this is more resilience to multi-path fade, and a theoretical 3db increase in power on the receive. The negative of this is that the noise from BOTH polarities is heard. So... Lets say Horizontal pol is noise free, but verticle pol is full of noise. There is no way to steer around the noise on verticle pol. There is no way to select using Horizontal pol only without the noise of the verticle antenna heard. SO How does this apply to Co-existence with Canopy bearby? Well, most Canopy APs use Verticle polarity only. Therefore, the Canopies tower will likely use most of the Verticle polarity channels, and your ubiquitis will likely hear a lot more noise on Verticle channels. If you used equipment that was a single pol design, you'd be able to select Horizontal pol only, and you'd be able to steer around the Canopy easily. With Mimo Ubiquiti, you wont have that option anymore. As well, the Canopy user is locked to 20Mhz channels, and wont be able to make room for you that way either. So... you should be prepared that you are likely going to be fighting interference with the Canopy users. The Canopy user will have one advantage, they'll only need 3db SNR to survive your noise, where you'll need atleast 8-10db SNR to survive their noise. (Ubiquiti would work better at 18-25db SNR). You will have two advantages though One, your Ubiquitis can be set to 10Mhz channels, adjustable in 5Mhz increasments, to find the holes between the Canopy's selected channels. Two, the Ubiquitis are higher power. You'll be able to go up to 24-26dbm at the CPE (depending on modulation), where Canopy may be limited to 22dbm, and Ubiquiti has more flexible CPE options to choose higher gain antennas, if needed. If the Canopy tower is two miles away, you should be able to carefully select your channel plan to avoid interference, but noise at your tower will still be a big concern to avoid. I'd highly recommend that you go all out on the Ubiquiti Tower, and in addition to using the UBiquiti Antennas, use the custom third party shields made for them to increase the Front/Back isolation of the antennas. These Ubiquiti Radio are really really sweet. And their wireless dirver appear to handle noise well. But its still all about the math, and with Ubiquiti MIMO, it does hear MORE noise, because of the dual pol design. Note, if you ever run into trouble where there the Verticle pol noise is to severe for the AP It is possible to select single chain mode 0-7, and cap the verticle pol antenna port on the radio (disconnect verticle pol antenna feed), then your radio would just hear on Horizontal pol. (I believe Chain0 is Horizontal pol, from what we've determined, but you'd need to confirm that yourself). However, I can not vouge for whether there would be any long term harm to the radio because of that, meaning whether it would hurt to operate the radio without an antenna load on the second chain polarity. But we've operated successfully like that at some sights for a while. Another technique that can help is to point only one 120 degree antenna in the direction of the Canopy tower. The mentality here is to send the very least amount of noise and channel usage in their direction. It will be easier for the Canopy tower to vacate and leave a single channel for your use, in that direction. Anything you point at them could interfere with them, and vice versa, so reduce the number of channels pointed to them. Most ISPs can spare a channel, but cant spare many. So give them a solution for non-interference, that impacts them the least. They were there first, and would likely protect their turf, the last thing you want is a noise battle with a 3db SNR TDD radio. The Ubiquiti freq scanner works well, to find the best free channel to use for each of your sectors.
Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
At 9/23/2010 07:41 PM, Brian wrote: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary==_NextPart_000_16AA_01CB5B57.64FF81E0 Content-Language: en-us But what if you are able to use spectrum around 200 or 300 MHz? That certainly goes through trees. The rules allow antenna heights up to 30 meters, around 100 feet. One problem with the maximum HAAT limit is that it applies to the ground height, based on having a 30 meter high antenna. In other words, the ruling assumed a maximum antenna HAAT, and then set the ground HAAT to be 30m below that. If somebody's house is 10m below the limit, then a 10m antenna should be legal. (The minimum antenna height went away, since sensing is no longer required. That frankly seems to be the only major improvement in the rules.) Brian From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick forest/trees easilly 70ft tall. A 90ft height, just wouldn't allow enough of the signal to have open air, and the signal would be going through trees most of the full path. In 900Mhz, the difference between having the tower side over the tree line and below the tree line can be the difference between a quarter mile coverage and a 7 mile coverage in our market. All be it, 700Mhz does have better NLOS propogation characteristics than 900 does. I would have liked to see that height doubled. However, admittedly, it will allow much better spectrum re-use in areas that have a limited number of channels available. Spectrum reuse is one of the best ways to serve more people. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.comFred Goldstein To: mailto:wireless@wispa.orgWISPA General List Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height This item alone may be the show-stopper, the poison pill that makes it useless to WISPs in much of the country. In places where the routine variation in elevation is more than 75 meters, there will be houses (subscribers) that are more than 76 meters AAT. I notice this in the areas I'm studying, both in the east and in the upper midwest. In a place like Kansas, nobody is 75m AAT. But in the woody Berkshires of Western Massachusetts, the UHF space is needed to get through the trees, and a significant share of houses are 75m AAT. Also, if you want to cover a decent radius, the access point needs to be up the hill too. 75 meters isn't a mountaintop; it's just a little rise. It makes no sense to absolutely ban fixed use at a site that is 100m AAT if the nearest protected-service contour is, say, 50 miles away. A more sensible rule would be to follow broadcast practice, and lower the ERP based on height, so that the distance to a given signal strength contour is held constant as the height rises. Hence a Class A FM station is allowed up to 15 miles, and if it is more than 300 feet AAT, then it is allowed less than the 3000 watts ERP that apply at lower heights. Maybe the lawyers want to have more petitions to argue over. At 9/23/2010 04:07 PM, Rich Harnish wrote: 65. Decision. We decline to increase the maximum permitted transmit antenna height above ground for fixed TV bands devices. As the Commission stated in the Second Report and Order, the 30 meters above ground limit was established as a balance between the benefits of increasing TV bands device transmission range and the need to minimize the impact on licensed services.129 Consistent with the Commission's stated approach in the Second Report and Order of taking a conservative approach in protecting authorized services, we find the prudent course of action is to maintain the previously adopted height limit. If, in the future, experience with TV bands devices indicates that these devices could operate at higher transmit heights without causing interference, the Commission could revisit the height limit. 66. While we expect that specifying a limit on antenna height above ground rather than above average terrain is satisfactory for controlling interference to authorized services in the majority of cases, we also recognize petitioners' concerns about the increased potential for interference in instances where a fixed TV bands device antenna is located on a local geographic high point such as a hill or mountain.130 In such cases, the distance at which a TV bands device signal could propagate would be significantly increased, thus increasing the potential for interference to authorized operations in the TV bands. We therefore conclude that it is necessary to modify our rules to limit the antenna HAAT of a fixed device as well as its antenna height above ground. In considering a limit for
Re: [WISPA] nanostation and canopy towers within 2 miles of each other
Hey Tom, Great post with great info. have no quams with the info you have presented. Just wanted to point it.. that I think you read Marco's email backwards... What I understood from Marco's post is that HE is currently operating the Moto Canopy Tower, and a competitor is getting ready to light up a Ubiquity tower approx. 2 miles away from his tower. :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 9/23/2010 7:03 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Marco, Be aware of one very important principle when deploying Ubiquiti MIMO With them, you can NOT disable either of the polarities, both polarities always hear noise. In mode 8-15, double the capacity is acheived, each pol with unique data. Even in Modes 0-7 (single chain), I believe the same signal gets transmitted across both pols, and listens on both pols for same signal. The benefit of this is more resilience to multi-path fade, and a theoretical 3db increase in power on the receive. The negative of this is that the noise from BOTH polarities is heard. So... Lets say Horizontal pol is noise free, but verticle pol is full of noise. There is no way to steer around the noise on verticle pol. There is no way to select using Horizontal pol only without the noise of the verticle antenna heard. SO How does this apply to Co-existence with Canopy bearby? Well, most Canopy APs use Verticle polarity only. Therefore, the Canopies tower will likely use most of the Verticle polarity channels, and your ubiquitis will likely hear a lot more noise on Verticle channels. If you used equipment that was a single pol design, you'd be able to select Horizontal pol only, and you'd be able to steer around the Canopy easily. With Mimo Ubiquiti, you wont have that option anymore. As well, the Canopy user is locked to 20Mhz channels, and wont be able to make room for you that way either. So... you should be prepared that you are likely going to be fighting interference with the Canopy users. The Canopy user will have one advantage, they'll only need 3db SNR to survive your noise, where you'll need atleast 8-10db SNR to survive their noise. (Ubiquiti would work better at 18-25db SNR). You will have two advantages though One, your Ubiquitis can be set to 10Mhz channels, adjustable in 5Mhz increasments, to find the holes between the Canopy's selected channels. Two, the Ubiquitis are higher power. You'll be able to go up to 24-26dbm at the CPE (depending on modulation), where Canopy may be limited to 22dbm, and Ubiquiti has more flexible CPE options to choose higher gain antennas, if needed. If the Canopy tower is two miles away, you should be able to carefully select your channel plan to avoid interference, but noise at your tower will still be a big concern to avoid. I'd highly recommend that you go all out on the Ubiquiti Tower, and in addition to using the UBiquiti Antennas, use the custom third party shields made for them to increase the Front/Back isolation of the antennas. These Ubiquiti Radio are really really sweet. And their wireless dirver appear to handle noise well. But its still all about the math, and with Ubiquiti MIMO, it does hear MORE noise, because of the dual pol design. Note, if you ever run into trouble where there the Verticle pol noise is to severe for the AP It is possible to select single chain mode 0-7, and cap the verticle pol antenna port on the radio (disconnect verticle pol antenna feed), then your radio would just hear on Horizontal pol. (I believe Chain0 is Horizontal pol, from what we've determined, but you'd need to confirm that yourself). However, I can not vouge for whether there would be any long term harm to the radio because of that, meaning whether it would hurt to operate the radio without an antenna load on the second chain polarity. But we've operated successfully like that at some sights for a while. Another technique that can help is to point only one 120 degree antenna in the direction of the Canopy tower. The mentality here is to send the very least amount of noise and channel usage in their direction. It will be easier for the Canopy tower to vacate and leave a single channel for your use, in that direction. Anything you point at them could interfere with them, and vice versa, so reduce the number of channels pointed to them. Most ISPs can spare a channel, but cant spare many. So give them a solution for non-interference, that impacts them the least. They were there first, and would likely protect their turf, the last thing you want is a noise battle with a 3db SNR TDD radio. The Ubiquiti freq scanner works well, to find the best free channel to use for each of your sectors. That will come in handy, determining what channels are being used by the Canopy. . Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Marco Coelhocoelh...@gmail.com To:motor...@afmug.org; WISPA General
Re: [WISPA] Referral Programs
We just give one free month. Same as we always did with the dial up that worked tremendously! But we DO give a FREE install and first month free to anyone to sends a farmer our way with a grain leg we can use!!! Well worth it. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 6:15 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Referral Programs Same here but we give $25 off the install fee as well. On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Matt Jenkins m...@smarterbroadband.net wrote: We actually mail a check for $25 to the person who referred. The check in hand is a physical reminder of the referral. We feel that this is better than the nebulous credit they really don't see or interact with. On 09/23/2010 06:59 AM, Jeremy Rodgers wrote: We are looking into creating a solid referral program. Does anyone have input on what has worked well and what hasn't? We were thinking of a free month of service for the new customer and referring one. Is this too much? Any thoughts? -- *Jeremy J. Rodgers* Sales Manager OnlyInternet Broadband and Wireless O: 260.827.2234 O: 800.363.0989 F: 260.824.9624 .But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD. Joshua 24:15 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/
Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Today is a Momentous Day for our Industry - Sept.23rd, 2010
With $50 billion in revenue they can give at least one to the little guys. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Bill Lentz b.le...@certifiedinstallationassociates.com wrote: Everyone in the group especially those directly involved with the FCC should be excited about today’s announcement. I know from personal call’s I received some cellular carriers were not happy with the direction the FCC took on White Spaces. This should really benefit rural America and open up opportunities for WISP operators. Bill Lentz/CTO www.certifiedinstallationassociates.com From: members-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:members-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Rick Harnish Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 6:07 PM To: memb...@wispa.org; 'WISPA General List'; motor...@afmug.com Subject: [WISPA Members] Today is a Momentous Day for our Industry - Sept.23rd, 2010 Today’s FCC decision to open up the TV Whitespaces for unlicensed operations is a decision that validates the WISP industry, WISPA, it’s members and the “grassroots” efforts we have achieved since our birth in 2004. I would like to thank all of the WISP operators who have joined this movement and have supported our efforts to improve our industry’s stake in the Broadband Service business landscape. WISPA isn’t a business; it is a well defined “association” of member companies that have common interests and a drive to improve their businesses. It is quite remarkable what we can all do when we combine our forces. Today’s MO on the TV Whitespaces included “WISPA” 88 times! We (WISPA) are now a household name with most of the lobbying groups (both opposition and supporters) in the broadband industry, the FCC and many legislators. We still need to work on the legislative lobbying effort and that will take each of our members to write to their congressman and senators, meet them personally and tell them our stories and successes. Although it may be out of many operator’s comfort zone, it should be noted that they (legislators) all get up and get dressed every morning just like you and I. They are often former neighbors and have a passion to serve their local service areas, just like we do. We need to befriend these influential people and relay our passion to extend broadband ubiquitously. We estimate there are 2000-3000 WISPs in the USA. Nearly 400 have joined and support WISPA. We can further benefit our industry with greater participation from those who continue to sit on the sidelines. We invite those WISPs to join the rest of the operators by joining WISPA at http://signup.wispa.org. By joining WISPA, you become a co-owner of WISPA with all of the other members. Incidentally, I just received a call from Francois Menard, a very astute operator in Canada, who will be joining WISPA very soon. He thanked WISPA for our hard work and he would like to get a similar organization started in Canada or get more Canadian WISP companies to join WISPA. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot duplicate what we have achieved to assist our neighbors to the north with greater effectiveness. The telecom world is heating up, debate is dynamic and everlasting! Our work and lobbying continues or we will fade away through legislation without representation. We MUST speak up to hold our ground and seek new fertile ground. I work hard each day to stimulate the industry I so dearly love. I invite you to join our efforts. The technical talk is fine and needed, but without a playing field to place the infrastructure and achieve business success, the technical talk is all a moot point. Respectfully, Rick Harnish Executive Director WISPA 260-307-4000 cell 866-317-2851 WISPA Office Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org ___ WISPA Membership Mailing List --- 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] [WISPA Members] Today is a Momentous Day for our Industry - Sept.23rd, 2010
Ubiquity or Motorola. Taking all bets! Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Bill Lentz b.le...@certifiedinstallationassociates.com wrote: Now we wait for devices to be developed and accepted. I am really excited about the prospects. Bill Lentz/CTO www.certifiedinstallationassociates.com -Original Message- From: Josh Luthman [mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com] Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 8:35 PM To: b.le...@certifiedinstallationassociates.com; memb...@wispa.org Cc: WISPA General List; motor...@afmug.com Subject: Re: [WISPA Members] Today is a Momentous Day for our Industry - Sept.23rd, 2010 With $50 billion in revenue they can give at least one to the little guys. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Bill Lentz b.le...@certifiedinstallationassociates.com wrote: Everyone in the group especially those directly involved with the FCC should be excited about today’s announcement. I know from personal call’s I received some cellular carriers were not happy with the direction the FCC took on White Spaces. This should really benefit rural America and open up opportunities for WISP operators. Bill Lentz/CTO www.certifiedinstallationassociates.com From: members-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:members-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Rick Harnish Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 6:07 PM To: memb...@wispa.org; 'WISPA General List'; motor...@afmug.com Subject: [WISPA Members] Today is a Momentous Day for our Industry - Sept.23rd, 2010 Today’s FCC decision to open up the TV Whitespaces for unlicensed operations is a decision that validates the WISP industry, WISPA, it’s members and the “grassroots” efforts we have achieved since our birth in 2004. I would like to thank all of the WISP operators who have joined this movement and have supported our efforts to improve our industry’s stake in the Broadband Service business landscape. WISPA isn’t a business; it is a well defined “association” of member companies that have common interests and a drive to improve their businesses. It is quite remarkable what we can all do when we combine our forces. Today’s MO on the TV Whitespaces included “WISPA” 88 times! We (WISPA) are now a household name with most of the lobbying groups (both opposition and supporters) in the broadband industry, the FCC and many legislators. We still need to work on the legislative lobbying effort and that will take each of our members to write to their congressman and senators, meet them personally and tell them our stories and successes. Although it may be out of many operator’s comfort zone, it should be noted that they (legislators) all get up and get dressed every morning just like you and I. They are often former neighbors and have a passion to serve their local service areas, just like we do. We need to befriend these influential people and relay our passion to extend broadband ubiquitously. We estimate there are 2000-3000 WISPs in the USA. Nearly 400 have joined and support WISPA. We can further benefit our industry with greater participation from those who continue to sit on the sidelines. We invite those WISPs to join the rest of the operators by joining WISPA at http://signup.wispa.org. By joining WISPA, you become a co-owner of WISPA with all of the other members. Incidentally, I just received a call from Francois Menard, a very astute operator in Canada, who will be joining WISPA very soon. He thanked WISPA for our hard work and he would like to get a similar organization started in Canada or get more Canadian WISP companies to join WISPA. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot duplicate what we have achieved to assist our neighbors to the north with greater effectiveness. The telecom world is heating up, debate is dynamic and everlasting! Our work and lobbying continues or we will fade away through legislation without representation. We MUST speak up to hold our ground and seek new fertile ground. I work hard each day to stimulate the industry I so dearly love. I invite you to join our efforts. The technical talk is fine and needed, but without a playing field to place the infrastructure and achieve business success, the technical talk is all a moot point. Respectfully, Rick Harnish Executive Director WISPA 260-307-4000 cell 866-317-2851 WISPA Office Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org ___ WISPA Membership Mailing List --- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/
