[WISPA] Re: CPE Cost Ideas Needed

[Joshua M. Andrews]

Cliff:
 
Thank you for the 
information.  The areas of DSL are very spotty and cable is very 
inexpensive and unreliable.  Many people are upset at both 
situations.  DSL is offered for about $30 per month with purchase of a DSL 
"modem" at around $50 or so and a 1 year contract is required.  Cable 
service rents you the modem for $10 per month and charges $40 per month for 
service on top of that ($50 per month total for those of you out there in other 
posts that think half-duplex is as good a full-duplex).
 
I'm shooting at 
offering 1.5 Mbps service at around $24.95 and offering VOIP for another $24.95 
if they so choose.  So the competition hasn't a chance against me if I can 
get around that $350 CPE cost.
 
--
 
 
Tom:
 
I understand what 
you mean by offering a "free month" per year of service and how wireless 
year-long+ terms may not appeal compared to similar terms with a wired 
service.  What does your company do to alleviate this problem?  
Thanks.
 
---
 
 
Peter:
 
Jeez, do you want me 
to provide you with my business plan!?  ha-ha!  I will continue to own 
the CPE and I'm shooting for a 1-3 term most likely.  I could offer a 
priority guaranteed 24 hour turn around for example but at what price can I 
afford such a thing.  My service is basically self-install.  I'm using 
WaveRider 900 MHz and anybody within about 2 miles (for sure in my area) can do 
it on their own very easily.  So "priority installation" is kind of a mute 
point.  Any other ideas?  Thanks!
 
---
 
 
Mac:
 
Thank you for your 
response.  I'm not using Trango equipment and I know their prices are lower 
but that can't be really helped since I've chosen a different provider.  
Have you had much success with your $400 install costs on the 900 MHz?  
Thanks.
 
---
 
 
Pete:
 
Thank you for the 
detailed response.  I appreciate you taking the time to comment.  I 
don't want to be rude but I took a look at your website and it needs some work. 
:(
In any case, I think 
you have a point.  Could you elaborate more on what you meant by going with 
a 802.11b AP/CPE.  Do you mean you are shooting a signal out to an area 
using WaveRider and then distributing it via another 802.11b AP from 
there?  I think your right about contracts and install fees and it sounds 
like your saying that I'm just going to have to eat the cost and extend my ROI 
per user.  Thanks again.
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] phone-to-voip-to-ethernet conversion

[John J. Thomas]

PBX>FXOmodule>Ethernet>WirelessBridge>WirelessBridge>Ethernet>FXS module

Here is one example, Google will probably get you cheaper ones


John


>-Original Message-
>From: Mario Pommier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2006 10:57 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: [WISPA] phone-to-voip-to-ethernet conversion
>
>I have an interesting application, that maybe someone has tried:
>
>Customer is expanding to a remote office, across the street from the 
>main office.
>They need to connect voice and data between the two.
>There's clear LOS, so a wireless link will work.
>The telephone PBX is at the main office, of course.
>I need to send avoice line across the wireless link from the main office 
>to the remote one.
>How do I add the voice?  Couldn't I simply do this?
>
>PBX [telephone cord]>[Linksys VoIP phone]->[switch (which 
>also has an uplink to the wired network)]>[wireless radio]
>
>On the other side of the link, the telephone cord would go into a 
>desktop phone terminal.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Mario
>---
>[This e-mail was scanned for viruses by our AntiVirus Protection System]
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

[Brian Rohrbacher]

"new auto remote Reboot device"

You should go unplug it again to take the new auto remote reboot device 
to a radio that needs it.  :)  LOL


Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

Can you provide the Sysinfo screen for your Quest T1 router, showing 3 
years please.


Could you please post the "sysinfo" of the 5800 radio showing an 
uptime of 48 months



My mistake. It has never failed in 4 years, however, it has been taken 
down by me for scheduled maintenance.  I forgot, I took the link down 
about a year and a half ago for 30 seconds, so I could plug it into a 
new auto remote Reboot device.  However, 567 days aint bad.


#> sysinfo
[Hardware Version] 8002
[FPGA Version] 02103000 [Checksum] 7ADD5AB6
[Firmware Version] AP 1p11H8002D03100301 [Checksum] EF3391FF
[Device ID] 00 01 DE 00 31 C7 [Base ID] 1 [AP ID] 2
[System Up Time] 567 day(s) 18:06:04
[Radio Temperature] 31 C
[Opmode] ap [Default Opmode] ap [Opmode Start] 30 sec
[IP] 10.0.1.2 [Subnet Mask] 255.255.255.0 [Gateway] 10.0.1.1
[Httpd Port] 80 [Httpd Status] listen
[Telnetd Port] 23 [Telnetd Status] connected (10.0.1.1,53208)
[Tftpd] disabled
[MIR Threshold] off [MIR Threshold Kbps]  4096
[Active Channel] 6 v 5836 MHz
[RF Rx Threshold] -80 dBm
[RF Tx Power] 22 dBm
Channel Table: (MHz)
[Ch#01] 5736 [Ch#02] 5756 [Ch#03] 5776 [Ch#04] 5796 [Ch#05] 5816 
[Ch#06] 5836
[Ch#07] 5260 [Ch#08] 5280 [Ch#09] 5300 [Ch#10] 5320 [Ch#11] 5340 
[Ch#12] 5736
[Ch#13] 5736 [Ch#14] 5736 [Ch#15] 5736 [Ch#16] 5736 [Ch#17] 5736 
[Ch#18] 5736
[Ch#19] 5736 [Ch#20] 5736 [Ch#21] 5736 [Ch#22] 5736 [Ch#23] 5736 
[Ch#24] 5736
[Ch#25] 5736 [Ch#26] 5736 [Ch#27] 5736 [Ch#28] 5736 [Ch#29] 5736 
[Ch#30] 5736


[Broadcast Packet] pass
[Remarks] ap-2, ap-rockville
Success.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Tom,

Could you please post the "sysinfo" of the 5800 radio showing an 
uptime of 48 months... I've never seen one over 10 months (even with 
over 100 Trango AP's running now). :)


Repair time for any down T1 lines has been less than 24 hours... 
usually 1-2 hours.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:



Travis,

I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% 
for the last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any 
wireless links that have that type of reliability?




Yes. I have a 12 mile backhaul using PtMP Trango 5800s, From 
Rockville, Md to Vienna, VA, that has not went down in 4 years.


This year I had lost some high end subs in DC, due to excessive 
outages over a 6 month period. They bailed, because they doubted 
wireless, however, the ironic part was the fiber carrier was the 
faught.  The Fiber partner had outages 5 to 2 ratio.


2 Outages Wireless, itemized as:
   1 outage was due to antenna moving - repaired 2 hours.
   1 outage interference and required channel change - repaired 30 
minutes.

5 Outages - Fiber carrier, itemized as:
   1. Serious Peering problem (level 3). - repair time 1 week
   2. Fiber converter failure -packet loss - Fiber carrier could 
not respond for 8 hours, I performed the prepair while waiting for 
their tech.
   3. Bad cell in battery backup - 4 hours, a second outage 
required for repair, 10 minutes.
   4. Fiber end got dirty by airborn dust -packet loss - 
Intermittent problems 2 weeks while carrier denied a problem.  I 
performed repair and put new end on cable.

   5. Fiber carrier outage- fiber cut some where.

For comparisons, both links wireless and Fiber were PtP links.
Many  T1s are delivered over Fiber now.
Wireless can be just as reliable.

Now I'll ask... Can you Qwest T1 deliver 10 mbps? How long did it 
take to get installed? For any of your T1s that did fail, what was 
the repair time?


I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any 
wireless list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground 
up starting in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning 
installing two new AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where 
it doesn't.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason 
then the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going 
to suffer the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver 
hitting a pole, which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 
failure.


Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I 
would argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless 
company if they don't believe it too.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

The original postition and question was "are you comparing your 
wireless service to telco T1". After your posts, it's obvious 
that you are... and I would argue that a land-based line will 
ALWAYS be better than wireless, with all other factors being the 
same. Now, if you are able to save the c

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

[Travis Johnson]

Wow... 567 days is the longest I've seen on any wireless radio... that's 
very cool.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

Can you provide the Sysinfo screen for your Quest T1 router, showing 3 
years please.


Could you please post the "sysinfo" of the 5800 radio showing an 
uptime of 48 months



My mistake. It has never failed in 4 years, however, it has been taken 
down by me for scheduled maintenance.  I forgot, I took the link down 
about a year and a half ago for 30 seconds, so I could plug it into a 
new auto remote Reboot device.  However, 567 days aint bad.


#> sysinfo
[Hardware Version] 8002
[FPGA Version] 02103000 [Checksum] 7ADD5AB6
[Firmware Version] AP 1p11H8002D03100301 [Checksum] EF3391FF
[Device ID] 00 01 DE 00 31 C7 [Base ID] 1 [AP ID] 2
[System Up Time] 567 day(s) 18:06:04
[Radio Temperature] 31 C
[Opmode] ap [Default Opmode] ap [Opmode Start] 30 sec
[IP] 10.0.1.2 [Subnet Mask] 255.255.255.0 [Gateway] 10.0.1.1
[Httpd Port] 80 [Httpd Status] listen
[Telnetd Port] 23 [Telnetd Status] connected (10.0.1.1,53208)
[Tftpd] disabled
[MIR Threshold] off [MIR Threshold Kbps]  4096
[Active Channel] 6 v 5836 MHz
[RF Rx Threshold] -80 dBm
[RF Tx Power] 22 dBm
Channel Table: (MHz)
[Ch#01] 5736 [Ch#02] 5756 [Ch#03] 5776 [Ch#04] 5796 [Ch#05] 5816 
[Ch#06] 5836
[Ch#07] 5260 [Ch#08] 5280 [Ch#09] 5300 [Ch#10] 5320 [Ch#11] 5340 
[Ch#12] 5736
[Ch#13] 5736 [Ch#14] 5736 [Ch#15] 5736 [Ch#16] 5736 [Ch#17] 5736 
[Ch#18] 5736
[Ch#19] 5736 [Ch#20] 5736 [Ch#21] 5736 [Ch#22] 5736 [Ch#23] 5736 
[Ch#24] 5736
[Ch#25] 5736 [Ch#26] 5736 [Ch#27] 5736 [Ch#28] 5736 [Ch#29] 5736 
[Ch#30] 5736


[Broadcast Packet] pass
[Remarks] ap-2, ap-rockville
Success.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Tom,

Could you please post the "sysinfo" of the 5800 radio showing an 
uptime of 48 months... I've never seen one over 10 months (even with 
over 100 Trango AP's running now). :)


Repair time for any down T1 lines has been less than 24 hours... 
usually 1-2 hours.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:



Travis,

I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% 
for the last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any 
wireless links that have that type of reliability?




Yes. I have a 12 mile backhaul using PtMP Trango 5800s, From 
Rockville, Md to Vienna, VA, that has not went down in 4 years.


This year I had lost some high end subs in DC, due to excessive 
outages over a 6 month period. They bailed, because they doubted 
wireless, however, the ironic part was the fiber carrier was the 
faught.  The Fiber partner had outages 5 to 2 ratio.


2 Outages Wireless, itemized as:
   1 outage was due to antenna moving - repaired 2 hours.
   1 outage interference and required channel change - repaired 30 
minutes.

5 Outages - Fiber carrier, itemized as:
   1. Serious Peering problem (level 3). - repair time 1 week
   2. Fiber converter failure -packet loss - Fiber carrier could 
not respond for 8 hours, I performed the prepair while waiting for 
their tech.
   3. Bad cell in battery backup - 4 hours, a second outage 
required for repair, 10 minutes.
   4. Fiber end got dirty by airborn dust -packet loss - 
Intermittent problems 2 weeks while carrier denied a problem.  I 
performed repair and put new end on cable.

   5. Fiber carrier outage- fiber cut some where.

For comparisons, both links wireless and Fiber were PtP links.
Many  T1s are delivered over Fiber now.
Wireless can be just as reliable.

Now I'll ask... Can you Qwest T1 deliver 10 mbps? How long did it 
take to get installed? For any of your T1s that did fail, what was 
the repair time?


I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any 
wireless list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground 
up starting in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning 
installing two new AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where 
it doesn't.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason 
then the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going 
to suffer the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver 
hitting a pole, which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 
failure.


Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I 
would argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless 
company if they don't believe it too.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

The original postition and question was "are you comparing your 
wireless service to telco T1". After your posts, it's obvious 
that you are... and I would argue that a land-based line will 
ALWAYS be better than wireless, with all other factors being the 
same. Now, if you are able to save the customer $xx per month by 
using wireles

RE: [WISPA] Is this real? More unlicensed bands?

[Brian Webster]

John,
Just off the top of my head this may be for RFID type devices looking at
the description of the services that might use it. I think I recall some
activity a while ago trying to increase the power levels for RFID systems.
The collision avoidance systems they speak of may be back-up types for large
vehicles and or smart highway/car systems. Just a thought.



Thank You,
Brian Webster

-Original Message-
From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 6:27 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] Is this real? More unlicensed bands?


I cannot believe I have never read about this before. Is it an April
Fool's joke? According to the sources I have seen this was released a
couple of years back. Can anyone confirm or deny the validity of this
information? Does anyone have a link that leads to a description of
exactly what can and cannot be done with these bands if it is real? I
know it is indicating UWB but this does not appear to be the only thing
it is limited to i I am reading this right.
Many thanks,
Scriv

 From December 24, 2004:

* FCC Permits New Unlicensed UWB Devices*
* ** *The FCC adopted new rules to permit unlicensed wideband devices in
the 6 GHz, 17 GHz and 24 GHz bands. Specifically, the FCC amended its
rules for general Part 15 unlicensed operations that use wide bandwidths
but are not classified as UWB devices under its rules. It increased the
peak power limits and reduced the unwanted emission levels for 3
frequency bands that were already available for unlicensed operation:
5925-7250 MHz, 16.2-17.2 GHz, and 23.12-29 GHz, and indicated that
higher peak power limits in these bands would facilitate wideband
operations such as short range communications, collision avoidance,
inventory control and tracking systems. The Commission also amended its
measurement procedures to permit frequency hopped, swept frequency, and
gated systems operating within these bands to be measured in their
normal operating mode.

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

[Tom DeReggi]

Travis,

Can you provide the Sysinfo screen for your Quest T1 router, showing 3 years 
please.


Could you please post the "sysinfo" of the 5800 radio showing an uptime of 
48 months


My mistake. It has never failed in 4 years, however, it has been taken down 
by me for scheduled maintenance.  I forgot, I took the link down about a 
year and a half ago for 30 seconds, so I could plug it into a new auto 
remote Reboot device.  However, 567 days aint bad.


#> sysinfo
[Hardware Version] 8002
[FPGA Version] 02103000 [Checksum] 7ADD5AB6
[Firmware Version] AP 1p11H8002D03100301 [Checksum] EF3391FF
[Device ID] 00 01 DE 00 31 C7 [Base ID] 1 [AP ID] 2
[System Up Time] 567 day(s) 18:06:04
[Radio Temperature] 31 C
[Opmode] ap [Default Opmode] ap [Opmode Start] 30 sec
[IP] 10.0.1.2 [Subnet Mask] 255.255.255.0 [Gateway] 10.0.1.1
[Httpd Port] 80 [Httpd Status] listen
[Telnetd Port] 23 [Telnetd Status] connected (10.0.1.1,53208)
[Tftpd] disabled
[MIR Threshold] off [MIR Threshold Kbps]  4096
[Active Channel] 6 v 5836 MHz
[RF Rx Threshold] -80 dBm
[RF Tx Power] 22 dBm
Channel Table: (MHz)
[Ch#01] 5736 [Ch#02] 5756 [Ch#03] 5776 [Ch#04] 5796 [Ch#05] 5816 [Ch#06] 
5836
[Ch#07] 5260 [Ch#08] 5280 [Ch#09] 5300 [Ch#10] 5320 [Ch#11] 5340 [Ch#12] 
5736
[Ch#13] 5736 [Ch#14] 5736 [Ch#15] 5736 [Ch#16] 5736 [Ch#17] 5736 [Ch#18] 
5736
[Ch#19] 5736 [Ch#20] 5736 [Ch#21] 5736 [Ch#22] 5736 [Ch#23] 5736 [Ch#24] 
5736
[Ch#25] 5736 [Ch#26] 5736 [Ch#27] 5736 [Ch#28] 5736 [Ch#29] 5736 [Ch#30] 
5736


[Broadcast Packet] pass
[Remarks] ap-2, ap-rockville
Success.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband



Tom,

Could you please post the "sysinfo" of the 5800 radio showing an uptime of 
48 months... I've never seen one over 10 months (even with over 100 Trango 
AP's running now). :)


Repair time for any down T1 lines has been less than 24 hours... usually 
1-2 hours.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:



Travis,

I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% for the 
last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any wireless links that 
have that type of reliability?



Yes. I have a 12 mile backhaul using PtMP Trango 5800s, From Rockville, 
Md to Vienna, VA, that has not went down in 4 years.


This year I had lost some high end subs in DC, due to excessive outages 
over a 6 month period. They bailed, because they doubted wireless, 
however, the ironic part was the fiber carrier was the faught.  The Fiber 
partner had outages 5 to 2 ratio.


2 Outages Wireless, itemized as:
   1 outage was due to antenna moving - repaired 2 hours.
   1 outage interference and required channel change - repaired 30 
minutes.

5 Outages - Fiber carrier, itemized as:
   1. Serious Peering problem (level 3). - repair time 1 week
   2. Fiber converter failure -packet loss - Fiber carrier could not 
respond for 8 hours, I performed the prepair while waiting for their 
tech.
   3. Bad cell in battery backup - 4 hours, a second outage required 
for repair, 10 minutes.
   4. Fiber end got dirty by airborn dust -packet loss - Intermittent 
problems 2 weeks while carrier denied a problem.  I performed repair and 
put new end on cable.

   5. Fiber carrier outage- fiber cut some where.

For comparisons, both links wireless and Fiber were PtP links.
Many  T1s are delivered over Fiber now.
Wireless can be just as reliable.

Now I'll ask... Can you Qwest T1 deliver 10 mbps? How long did it take to 
get installed? For any of your T1s that did fail, what was the repair 
time?


I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any wireless 
list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground up starting 
in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning installing two new 
AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where it doesn't.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason then 
the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to suffer 
the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting a pole, 
which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure.


Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would 
argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if 
they don't believe it too.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

The original postition and question was "are you comparing your 
wireless service to telco T1". After your posts, it's obvious that you 
are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be better 
than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if you are 
able to save the customer $xx per month by using wireless, then there 
is an advantage. If you can provide other services, then there is an 
advantage. However, comparing a half-duplex

Re: [WISPA] Strange problem after AP upgrade (at my wits end)

[John Scrivner]

Try different radios and/or system OS. You could run Mikrotik or Star OS 
on the board for little money. If it is not a motherboard issue then I 
think there is something that the OS or radios do not like specific to 
that location.

Scriv


rabbtux rabbtux wrote:


All,

we have a 50' tower that had a soekris4511 board running a modified 
version of pebble linux.  The system worked great for nearly 2 
years.  We upgraded the system to a soekris 4521 and bridged both 
pcmcia interfaces to have a 2 sector site.  The 2 sector system works 
great except for one problem:  it randomly dies every 1-4 days and 
never comes back!  (until a tech goes on site and recycles power)


The lockup symptoms are as folows:
1) blinking link light at switch where eth0 is plugged in.
2) No response from any interface - wired or wireless.
3) System log is set to issue a "mark" line every 10 minutes, but 
nothing is written during this lockup time.


The system has a working & tested watchdog timer.

What has been tried (not in this order):

1) cron job that pings wireless backhaul and does a reboot if no ping 
answer for 10 min. (didn't ever run)


2) Thinking it might be a power problem we replaced power supplies.

3) Not trusting our POE ethernet cable, we used a second Cat5 cable 
for DC power only.  4 wires were used for each line of the DC power, 
which was plugged directly into the motherboard.


4) Added a ground rod & cable to improve tower grounding. (remember 
though, this single sector system worked fine without this added 
grounding)


5) swapped out the 4521 motherboard.

6) created a bench test system.  This was an exact duplicate of the 
tower system without external antennas, run on the bench.


wireless LT -> 2 sector system(backhaul link) - > wireless router -> 
wired laptop


In this test system our test AP runs without any wired connections, as 
it is in the field.  We ran flat out repeated copy scripts for 3-4 
days, and transferred approx 40G at about 3Mb/s (way more that actual 
field conditions!).


Never saw test system lockup, its up time was always correct.  This 
actual 4521 mother board is now on the tower, and we still see the 
problem.


Any suggestions??

Thank you kindly,
Marshall 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] Strange problem after AP upgrade (at my wits end)

[rabbtux rabbtux]

All,we have a 50' tower that had a soekris4511 board running a
modified version of pebble linux.  The system worked great
for nearly 2 years.  We upgraded the system to a soekris 4521
and bridged both pcmcia interfaces to have a 2 sector
site.  The 2 sector system works great except for one
problem:  it randomly dies every 1-4 days and never comes
back!  (until a tech goes on site and recycles power)The lockup symptoms are as folows:1) blinking link light at switch where eth0 is plugged in.2) No response from any interface - wired or wireless.3) System log is set to issue a "mark" line every 10 minutes, but nothing is written during this lockup time.
The system has a working & tested watchdog timer.What has been tried (not in this order):1) cron job that pings wireless backhaul and does a reboot if no ping answer for 10 min. (didn't ever run)
2) Thinking it might be a power problem we replaced power supplies.3)
Not trusting our POE ethernet cable, we used a second Cat5 cable for DC
power only.  4 wires were used for each line of the DC power,
which was plugged directly into the motherboard.4) Added a
ground rod & cable to improve tower grounding. (remember though,
this single sector system worked fine without this added grounding)5) swapped out the 4521 motherboard.6)
created a bench test system.  This was an exact duplicate of
the tower system without external antennas, run on the bench.wireless LT -> 2 sector system(backhaul link) - > wireless router -> wired laptopIn
this test system our test AP runs without any wired connections, as it
is in the field.  We ran flat out repeated copy scripts for
3-4 days, and transferred approx 40G at about 3Mb/s (way more that
actual field conditions!).Never saw test system lockup, its up
time was always correct.  This actual 4521 mother board is
now on the tower, and we still see the problem.Any suggestions??Thank you kindly,Marshall
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

[John Scrivner]

Well engineered links with proper installation, lightning protection, 
battery backup and good gear will be just as reliable (if not more) as 
any land line system in my opinion. The rub is that many wireless links 
are poorly engineered, bad gear and not installed well. Garbage 
in...garbage out. I am just as guilty as anyone else. I am fixing that 
though. I have wireless links that are getting to be as reliable as 
wired ones. I will be "better than wired" reliably here in a year. The 
cost factor puts wireless well ahead of any risk/reward or value 
comparisons to other broadband platforms. Wireless will be the clear 
winner in the end if we all learn to do it right and buy good gear.

Scriv


Travis Johnson wrote:


Hi,

I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% for 
the last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any wireless links 
that have that type of reliability?


I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any 
wireless list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground up 
starting in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning installing 
two new AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where it doesn't.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason 
then the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to 
suffer the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting 
a pole, which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure.


Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would 
argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if 
they don't believe it too.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

The original postition and question was "are you comparing your 
wireless service to telco T1". After your posts, it's obvious that 
you are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be 
better than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if 
you are able to save the customer $xx per month by using wireless, 
then there is an advantage. If you can provide other services, then 
there is an advantage. However, comparing a half-duplex system to a 
full-duplex system and saying they are the same is... not correct.


If you had the choice between running a full-duplex wireless system 
and half-duplex, which would you do? :)


If you could purchase a land-based connection to go from point A to 
point B for $500 per month, or rent roof-top space at point A and 
point B for $500 per month, which would you choose? ;)


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

I'd love to perform your test.
Send me the CD.
Understanding that I will provision the customer at 3 mbps on our 
first hop router, using Trango 10mbps PtMP radio link, and that 
your CD test will generate 1500mbps of data transfer.


There are three seperate issues here. 1) One user's connection able 
to effect another user's connection, and 2) On one particular link, 
their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under normal 
opperation within acceptable use policy, and 3) On one particular 
link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under 
a Denial of Service situation.


With any type of broadband, if the capacity of a link is saturated, 
it results in packet loss and performance loss for the individual's 
connection. Its up to the end user to protect against violation of 
acceptable use policy like viruses that deliver abnormal PPS, or 
any queueing needed to allow fair priority of data type on the LAN 
side of the link. These problems can also all be solved with a 
feature rich client side router before plugging to our Broadband, 
regardless of the Duplex of our link.  In other words, The same 
performance problems will result on a full Duplex link, if one 
direction gets saturated, and that same direction traffic will 
result in packet loss, and all communication generally requires 
some communication in each of the direction for traffic to flow in 
one direction.  So where the problem may be worse with Half Duplex, 
the problem still exists in some capacity with Full Duplex. I'd 
argue that its possible to generate enough pps on a Full Duplex 
Link in one direction, that will overload the processing power of 
the radio CPU, and the other direction still getting horrible 
performance even with no traffic passing in that other direction 
even though Full Duplex, because no CPU time is available for it. 
Unless each direction has its own CPU, which is not likely.  This 
is an issue of whether the radio used can handle the number of PPS 
sent to it in high DOS situations.


I'd also argue under this situation 4000 pps 1500 mbps, that the 
customer's use of the circuit in any capacity when a DOS of that 
type was happening, would be not possible, and justify immediate 
tech action to resolve, regardless of whether one direction of 
traffic was usable.  I;ve never met a company where having one 
direction traffic onl

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

[Travis Johnson]

Tom,

Could you please post the "sysinfo" of the 5800 radio showing an uptime 
of 48 months... I've never seen one over 10 months (even with over 100 
Trango AP's running now). :)


Repair time for any down T1 lines has been less than 24 hours... usually 
1-2 hours.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:



Travis,

I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% for 
the last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any wireless 
links that have that type of reliability?



Yes. I have a 12 mile backhaul using PtMP Trango 5800s, From 
Rockville, Md to Vienna, VA, that has not went down in 4 years.


This year I had lost some high end subs in DC, due to excessive 
outages over a 6 month period. They bailed, because they doubted 
wireless, however, the ironic part was the fiber carrier was the 
faught.  The Fiber partner had outages 5 to 2 ratio.


2 Outages Wireless, itemized as:
   1 outage was due to antenna moving - repaired 2 hours.
   1 outage interference and required channel change - repaired 30 
minutes.

5 Outages - Fiber carrier, itemized as:
   1. Serious Peering problem (level 3). - repair time 1 week
   2. Fiber converter failure -packet loss - Fiber carrier could 
not respond for 8 hours, I performed the prepair while waiting for 
their tech.
   3. Bad cell in battery backup - 4 hours, a second outage 
required for repair, 10 minutes.
   4. Fiber end got dirty by airborn dust -packet loss - 
Intermittent problems 2 weeks while carrier denied a problem.  I 
performed repair and put new end on cable.

   5. Fiber carrier outage- fiber cut some where.

For comparisons, both links wireless and Fiber were PtP links.
Many  T1s are delivered over Fiber now.
Wireless can be just as reliable.

Now I'll ask... Can you Qwest T1 deliver 10 mbps? How long did it take 
to get installed? For any of your T1s that did fail, what was the 
repair time?


I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any 
wireless list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground 
up starting in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning 
installing two new AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where 
it doesn't.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason 
then the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to 
suffer the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting 
a pole, which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure.


Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I 
would argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless 
company if they don't believe it too.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

The original postition and question was "are you comparing your 
wireless service to telco T1". After your posts, it's obvious that 
you are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be 
better than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, 
if you are able to save the customer $xx per month by using 
wireless, then there is an advantage. If you can provide other 
services, then there is an advantage. However, comparing a 
half-duplex system to a full-duplex system and saying they are the 
same is... not correct.


If you had the choice between running a full-duplex wireless system 
and half-duplex, which would you do? :)


If you could purchase a land-based connection to go from point A to 
point B for $500 per month, or rent roof-top space at point A and 
point B for $500 per month, which would you choose? ;)


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

I'd love to perform your test.
Send me the CD.
Understanding that I will provision the customer at 3 mbps on our 
first hop router, using Trango 10mbps PtMP radio link, and that 
your CD test will generate 1500mbps of data transfer.


There are three seperate issues here. 1) One user's connection 
able to effect another user's connection, and 2) On one particular 
link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under 
normal opperation within acceptable use policy, and 3) On one 
particular link, their upload traffic effecting their download 
traffic, under a Denial of Service situation.


With any type of broadband, if the capacity of a link is 
saturated, it results in packet loss and performance loss for the 
individual's connection. Its up to the end user to protect against 
violation of acceptable use policy like viruses that deliver 
abnormal PPS, or any queueing needed to allow fair priority of 
data type on the LAN side of the link. These problems can also all 
be solved with a feature rich client side router before plugging 
to our Broadband, regardless of the Duplex of our link.  In other 
words, The same performance problems will result on a full Duplex 
link, if one direction gets saturated, and that same direction 
traffic will result in packet loss, and all communication 
generally requires some communication in each of the directi

[WISPA] Is this real? More unlicensed bands?

[John Scrivner]

I cannot believe I have never read about this before. Is it an April 
Fool's joke? According to the sources I have seen this was released a 
couple of years back. Can anyone confirm or deny the validity of this 
information? Does anyone have a link that leads to a description of 
exactly what can and cannot be done with these bands if it is real? I 
know it is indicating UWB but this does not appear to be the only thing 
it is limited to i I am reading this right.

Many thanks,
Scriv

From December 24, 2004:

* FCC Permits New Unlicensed UWB Devices*
* ** *The FCC adopted new rules to permit unlicensed wideband devices in 
the 6 GHz, 17 GHz and 24 GHz bands. Specifically, the FCC amended its 
rules for general Part 15 unlicensed operations that use wide bandwidths 
but are not classified as UWB devices under its rules. It increased the 
peak power limits and reduced the unwanted emission levels for 3 
frequency bands that were already available for unlicensed operation: 
5925-7250 MHz, 16.2-17.2 GHz, and 23.12-29 GHz, and indicated that 
higher peak power limits in these bands would facilitate wideband 
operations such as short range communications, collision avoidance, 
inventory control and tracking systems. The Commission also amended its 
measurement procedures to permit frequency hopped, swept frequency, and 
gated systems operating within these bands to be measured in their 
normal operating mode.
begin:vcard
fn:John Scrivner
n:Scrivner;John
org:Mt. Vernon. Net, Inc.
adr;dom:PO Box 1582;;1 Dr Park Road Suite H1;Mt. Vernon;Il;62864
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:President
tel;work:618-244-6868
url:http://www.mvn.net/
version:2.1
end:vcard

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

[Tom DeReggi]

Travis,

I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% for the 
last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any wireless links that 
have that type of reliability?


Yes. I have a 12 mile backhaul using PtMP Trango 5800s, From Rockville, Md 
to Vienna, VA, that has not went down in 4 years.


This year I had lost some high end subs in DC, due to excessive outages over 
a 6 month period. They bailed, because they doubted wireless, however, the 
ironic part was the fiber carrier was the faught.  The Fiber partner had 
outages 5 to 2 ratio.


2 Outages Wireless, itemized as:
   1 outage was due to antenna moving - repaired 2 hours.
   1 outage interference and required channel change - repaired 30 minutes.
5 Outages - Fiber carrier, itemized as:
   1. Serious Peering problem (level 3). - repair time 1 week
   2. Fiber converter failure -packet loss - Fiber carrier could not 
respond for 8 hours, I performed the prepair while waiting for their tech.
   3. Bad cell in battery backup - 4 hours, a second outage required 
for repair, 10 minutes.
   4. Fiber end got dirty by airborn dust -packet loss - Intermittent 
problems 2 weeks while carrier denied a problem.  I 
performed repair and put new end on cable.

   5. Fiber carrier outage- fiber cut some where.

For comparisons, both links wireless and Fiber were PtP links.
Many  T1s are delivered over Fiber now.
Wireless can be just as reliable.

Now I'll ask... Can you Qwest T1 deliver 10 mbps? How long did it take to 
get installed? For any of your T1s that did fail, what was the repair time?


I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any wireless 
list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground up starting in 
1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning installing two new AP's. I 
understand where wireless fits and where it doesn't.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason then 
the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to suffer the 
loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting a pole, which 
are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure.


Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would 
argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if 
they don't believe it too.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

The original postition and question was "are you comparing your wireless 
service to telco T1". After your posts, it's obvious that you are... and 
I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be better than 
wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if you are able to 
save the customer $xx per month by using wireless, then there is an 
advantage. If you can provide other services, then there is an 
advantage. However, comparing a half-duplex system to a full-duplex 
system and saying they are the same is... not correct.


If you had the choice between running a full-duplex wireless system and 
half-duplex, which would you do? :)


If you could purchase a land-based connection to go from point A to 
point B for $500 per month, or rent roof-top space at point A and point 
B for $500 per month, which would you choose? ;)


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

I'd love to perform your test.
Send me the CD.
Understanding that I will provision the customer at 3 mbps on our first 
hop router, using Trango 10mbps PtMP radio link, and that your CD test 
will generate 1500mbps of data transfer.


There are three seperate issues here. 1) One user's connection able to 
effect another user's connection, and 2) On one particular link, their 
upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under normal 
opperation within acceptable use policy, and 3) On one particular link, 
their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under a Denial 
of Service situation.


With any type of broadband, if the capacity of a link is saturated, it 
results in packet loss and performance loss for the individual's 
connection. Its up to the end user to protect against violation of 
acceptable use policy like viruses that deliver abnormal PPS, or any 
queueing needed to allow fair priority of data type on the LAN side of 
the link. These problems can also all be solved with a feature rich 
client side router before plugging to our Broadband, regardless of the 
Duplex of our link.  In other words, The same performance problems will 
result on a full Duplex link, if one direction gets saturated, and that 
same direction traffic will result in packet loss, and all 
communication generally requires some communication in each of the 
direction for traffic to flow in one direction.  So where the problem 
may be worse with Half Duplex, the problem still exists in some 
capacity with Full Duplex. I'd argue that its possible to generate 
enough pps on a Full Duplex Link in one direction, that will overload 
the processing power of the radio CPU, and the 

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

[Travis Johnson]

Hi,

I have point to point T1 lines from Qwest that have been up 100% for the 
last 3 years. That's 100.0% uptime. Do you have any wireless links that 
have that type of reliability?


I am probably one of the largest WISP operators on this and any wireless 
list. I built our entire wireless backbone from the ground up starting 
in 1997. I spent 3 hours on a tower this morning installing two new 
AP's. I understand where wireless fits and where it doesn't.


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason 
then the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to 
suffer the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting a 
pole, which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure.


Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would 
argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if 
they don't believe it too.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

The original postition and question was "are you comparing your 
wireless service to telco T1". After your posts, it's obvious that 
you are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be 
better than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if 
you are able to save the customer $xx per month by using wireless, 
then there is an advantage. If you can provide other services, then 
there is an advantage. However, comparing a half-duplex system to a 
full-duplex system and saying they are the same is... not correct.


If you had the choice between running a full-duplex wireless system 
and half-duplex, which would you do? :)


If you could purchase a land-based connection to go from point A to 
point B for $500 per month, or rent roof-top space at point A and 
point B for $500 per month, which would you choose? ;)


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

I'd love to perform your test.
Send me the CD.
Understanding that I will provision the customer at 3 mbps on our 
first hop router, using Trango 10mbps PtMP radio link, and that your 
CD test will generate 1500mbps of data transfer.


There are three seperate issues here. 1) One user's connection able 
to effect another user's connection, and 2) On one particular link, 
their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under normal 
opperation within acceptable use policy, and 3) On one particular 
link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under a 
Denial of Service situation.


With any type of broadband, if the capacity of a link is saturated, 
it results in packet loss and performance loss for the individual's 
connection. Its up to the end user to protect against violation of 
acceptable use policy like viruses that deliver abnormal PPS, or any 
queueing needed to allow fair priority of data type on the LAN side 
of the link. These problems can also all be solved with a feature 
rich client side router before plugging to our Broadband, regardless 
of the Duplex of our link.  In other words, The same performance 
problems will result on a full Duplex link, if one direction gets 
saturated, and that same direction traffic will result in packet 
loss, and all communication generally requires some communication in 
each of the direction for traffic to flow in one direction.  So 
where the problem may be worse with Half Duplex, the problem still 
exists in some capacity with Full Duplex. I'd argue that its 
possible to generate enough pps on a Full Duplex Link in one 
direction, that will overload the processing power of the radio CPU, 
and the other direction still getting horrible performance even with 
no traffic passing in that other direction even though Full Duplex, 
because no CPU time is available for it. Unless each direction has 
its own CPU, which is not likely.  This is an issue of whether the 
radio used can handle the number of PPS sent to it in high DOS 
situations.


I'd also argue under this situation 4000 pps 1500 mbps, that the 
customer's use of the circuit in any capacity when a DOS of that 
type was happening, would be not possible, and justify immediate 
tech action to resolve, regardless of whether one direction of 
traffic was usable.  I;ve never met a company where having one 
direction traffic only was acceptable or tolerable.


You did however hit on an important clarification. A half duplex 
link can not distinguish on its own wether upload or download 
traffic at a given moment is priority or more important to the 
subscriber. When there is a large demand for legitimate broadband, 
why would the data in one direction be any more priority than the 
other, when capacity is reached? Either way the customer is 
compromised in throughout needs one direction or another. Doesn't it 
really mean that the customer needs more total bandwidth? Is it any 
more important that mail was sent and not received?  Full Duplex is 
one way for a customer to solve that problem, and reserve bandwdith 
in one direction. But does that

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

[Tom DeReggi]

Amen, Matt.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband


I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason then 
the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to suffer the 
loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting a pole, which 
are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure.


Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would 
argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if they 
don't believe it too.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

The original postition and question was "are you comparing your wireless 
service to telco T1". After your posts, it's obvious that you are... and 
I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be better than wireless, 
with all other factors being the same. Now, if you are able to save the 
customer $xx per month by using wireless, then there is an advantage. If 
you can provide other services, then there is an advantage. However, 
comparing a half-duplex system to a full-duplex system and saying they 
are the same is... not correct.


If you had the choice between running a full-duplex wireless system and 
half-duplex, which would you do? :)


If you could purchase a land-based connection to go from point A to point 
B for $500 per month, or rent roof-top space at point A and point B for 
$500 per month, which would you choose? ;)


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

I'd love to perform your test.
Send me the CD.
Understanding that I will provision the customer at 3 mbps on our first 
hop router, using Trango 10mbps PtMP radio link, and that your CD test 
will generate 1500mbps of data transfer.


There are three seperate issues here. 1) One user's connection able to 
effect another user's connection, and 2) On one particular link, their 
upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under normal opperation 
within acceptable use policy, and 3) On one particular link, their 
upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under a Denial of 
Service situation.


With any type of broadband, if the capacity of a link is saturated, it 
results in packet loss and performance loss for the individual's 
connection. Its up to the end user to protect against violation of 
acceptable use policy like viruses that deliver abnormal PPS, or any 
queueing needed to allow fair priority of data type on the LAN side of 
the link. These problems can also all be solved with a feature rich 
client side router before plugging to our Broadband, regardless of the 
Duplex of our link.  In other words, The same performance problems will 
result on a full Duplex link, if one direction gets saturated, and that 
same direction traffic will result in packet loss, and all communication 
generally requires some communication in each of the direction for 
traffic to flow in one direction.  So where the problem may be worse 
with Half Duplex, the problem still exists in some capacity with Full 
Duplex. I'd argue that its possible to generate enough pps on a Full 
Duplex Link in one direction, that will overload the processing power of 
the radio CPU, and the other direction still getting horrible 
performance even with no traffic passing in that other direction even 
though Full Duplex, because no CPU time is available for it. Unless each 
direction has its own CPU, which is not likely.  This is an issue of 
whether the radio used can handle the number of PPS sent to it in high 
DOS situations.


I'd also argue under this situation 4000 pps 1500 mbps, that the 
customer's use of the circuit in any capacity when a DOS of that type 
was happening, would be not possible, and justify immediate tech action 
to resolve, regardless of whether one direction of traffic was usable. 
I;ve never met a company where having one direction traffic only was 
acceptable or tolerable.


You did however hit on an important clarification. A half duplex link 
can not distinguish on its own wether upload or download traffic at a 
given moment is priority or more important to the subscriber. When there 
is a large demand for legitimate broadband, why would the data in one 
direction be any more priority than the other, when capacity is reached? 
Either way the customer is compromised in throughout needs one direction 
or another. Doesn't it really mean that the customer needs more total 
bandwidth? Is it any more important that mail was sent and not received? 
Full Duplex is one way for a customer to solve that problem, and reserve 
bandwdith in one direction. But does that really solve the problem? 
Maybe if the circuit's intended use is for 100% VOIP a symetrical 
application.  But not many circuits are used for that purpose.  And if I 
really wanted to, I can set my bandwdith management to be sepe

Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum

[John Scrivner]

Thanks Jack. I am reasonably sure that your number 2 assumption is on 
the mark. I used the "slap in the face" statement to illustrate the 
emotional impact these issues have on me and thousands of others who 
tell 60% of potential customers each day that they cannot get their 
broadband because Uncle Sam refuses to give us the spectrum we need to 
bring them broadband.  This borders on outright lunacy.


If the House lawmakers wanted to do some good they would have at least 
read what their Senate counterparts were proposing and saw that undoing 
the FCC hold-up of the 04-186 rulemaking is the key to the entire 
effort. Any other sideline efforts such as the House Spectrum Bill are 
simply ways of tripping up the process and further slowing the wheels of 
real progress. I am appalled that my own Representative, John Shimkus, 
who serves on the House Telecommunications Subcommittee has never once 
even called me for some feedback into what is really happening. I have 
called him asking for support more than once and I even personally went 
to his Washington D.C. office once and delivered papers outlining these 
efforts..


I see more and more why there is so much cynicism about politics today. 
If I were a Congressman I would admit freely and openly if I did not 
understand the nuances of a given subject. After all none of us know 
everything. Most Congressman appear to me to be unable to make that leap 
and ask for real guidance and try to understand what is at stake in 
their decision making. It is not enough for politicians to hide behind 
the rhetoric and be led by cash driven lobbying efforts which direct 
them like lemmings. The lack of objectivity and rational thinking in 
D.C. boggles the mind at times.


With that said I am sure that telling the House they are "Slapping us in 
the face" may be a bit harsh. Maybe they need to hear harsh though if 
they cannot see what is really happening. If I were drafting a bill I 
think I would certainly learn what is at stake and what is being played 
out in the Senate before being part of a crippled effort like that of 
this House Spectrum Bill. Thanks for listening to my rant.

Scriv


Jack Unger wrote:


John,

Yours is an articulate, well written summary. Although some WISPs may 
feel "slapped in the face", politics (law-making) is, as we know, not 
about face-slapping. Politics is about making laws that bring specific 
benefits to specific (large or small) groups of people.  I expect the 
6 MHz of proposed spectrum is either 1 or 2, below:


1. A sincere attempt to provide more license-free spectrum and to 
bring affordable broadband access to large numbers of rural citizens, 
proposed by lawmakers who are TECHNICALLY UNEDUCATED about how "x" 
amount of spectrum is needed to deliver "y" amount of broadband 
throughput to serve "z" number of citizens.


2. An sincere attempt on the part of TECHNOLOGY-SAVVY lawmakers to 
improve the business power and dominant political-economic position of 
the monopolistic telecom industry while ordinary citizens are "on 
their own" to cope with the consequences.


Thank you for your write-up.
 jack

Tom DeReggi wrote:


John, Well said.
I agree 6 mhz, a slap in the face.
I understood, Brad Larson's comment that 50Mhz is a lot to be thankk 
full for, when Marlon was suggesting that 50 Mhz was not enough, in 
critiquing Marlon's proposal. We learned with 900Mhz that we can do a 
lot with 30 Mhz, although tough.  But 6 Mhz, useless, and pointless.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum


Please read below and see my remarks on this feeble attempt to help 
Americans.


New spectrum legislation crafted
By Dan O'Shea

Apr 5, 2006 12:02 PM

Five members of the U.S. House of Representatives have announced new 
legislation that allow broadband wireless carriers and other 
companies to use television spectrum in the band between 608 Mhz and 
614 MHz for unlicensed wireless services.


The legislation was introduced by Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and his co- 
sponsors Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Paul 
Gillmor (R-Ohio) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.).


The Telecommunications Industry Association applauded the move. 
Agency president Matthew Flanigan, said in a statement, "TIA 
believes that these proposals could provide for more efficient and 
effective use of the television broadcast spectrum, as well as have 
significant benefits for the public by increasing competition in the 
wireless broadband industry and providing incentives for the 
development of new and innovative broadband devices and services for 
businesses and consumers.
http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/regulatory/House_spectrum_bill_040506/ 



My thoughts:
The House bill to give us a single 6 MHz channel is far too little 

[WISPA] phone-to-voip-to-ethernet conversion

[Mario Pommier]

I have an interesting application, that maybe someone has tried:

Customer is expanding to a remote office, across the street from the 
main office.

They need to connect voice and data between the two.
There's clear LOS, so a wireless link will work.
The telephone PBX is at the main office, of course.
I need to send avoice line across the wireless link from the main office 
to the remote one.

How do I add the voice?  Couldn't I simply do this?

PBX [telephone cord]>[Linksys VoIP phone]->[switch (which 
also has an uplink to the wired network)]>[wireless radio]


On the other side of the link, the telephone cord would go into a 
desktop phone terminal.


Thanks.

Mario
---
[This e-mail was scanned for viruses by our AntiVirus Protection System]

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum

[Jack Unger]

John,

Yours is an articulate, well written summary. Although some WISPs may 
feel "slapped in the face", politics (law-making) is, as we know, not 
about face-slapping. Politics is about making laws that bring specific 
benefits to specific (large or small) groups of people.  I expect the 6 
MHz of proposed spectrum is either 1 or 2, below:


1. A sincere attempt to provide more license-free spectrum and to bring 
affordable broadband access to large numbers of rural citizens, proposed 
by lawmakers who are TECHNICALLY UNEDUCATED about how "x" amount of 
spectrum is needed to deliver "y" amount of broadband throughput to 
serve "z" number of citizens.


2. An sincere attempt on the part of TECHNOLOGY-SAVVY lawmakers to 
improve the business power and dominant political-economic position of 
the monopolistic telecom industry while ordinary citizens are "on their 
own" to cope with the consequences.


Thank you for your write-up.
 jack

Tom DeReggi wrote:


John, Well said.
I agree 6 mhz, a slap in the face.
I understood, Brad Larson's comment that 50Mhz is a lot to be thankk 
full for, when Marlon was suggesting that 50 Mhz was not enough, in 
critiquing Marlon's proposal. We learned with 900Mhz that we can do a 
lot with 30 Mhz, although tough.  But 6 Mhz, useless, and pointless.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum


Please read below and see my remarks on this feeble attempt to help 
Americans.


New spectrum legislation crafted
By Dan O'Shea

Apr 5, 2006 12:02 PM

Five members of the U.S. House of Representatives have announced new 
legislation that allow broadband wireless carriers and other companies 
to use television spectrum in the band between 608 Mhz and 614 MHz for 
unlicensed wireless services.


The legislation was introduced by Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and his co- 
sponsors Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Paul 
Gillmor (R-Ohio) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.).


The Telecommunications Industry Association applauded the move. Agency 
president Matthew Flanigan, said in a statement, "TIA believes that 
these proposals could provide for more efficient and effective use of 
the television broadcast spectrum, as well as have significant 
benefits for the public by increasing competition in the wireless 
broadband industry and providing incentives for the development of new 
and innovative broadband devices and services for businesses and 
consumers.
http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/regulatory/House_spectrum_bill_040506/ 



My thoughts:
The House bill to give us a single 6 MHz channel is far too little to 
help and could even be regarded as a slap in the face if you have been 
starved for the quality spectrum we need to do the job as we all have 
for so long. This does not match the legislation being introduced by 
the Senate at all and could lead to making this a dead issue instead 
of helping bring broadband to the masses as intended. It does not 
surprise me that the TIA has applauded this as it serves their 
purposes of holding our efforts back. They would prefer to either have 
only licensed spectrum which acts as a means of keeping competitors 
out of the wireless space or as we see here they would like to see 
competing offers from the Senate and House so that the true 
opportunity as outlined in the FCC 04-186 is locked in debate and 
taken off the table to meet some compromise or worse yet the effort is 
killed from having too little common ground to pass a vote from both 
sides of Congress.


If any of you are in the states of Washington, Tennessee, Wisconsin, 
Ohio or Virginia I certainly hope you will call your Reps today and 
let them know that 6 MHz of spectrum is like giving a spoonful of 
water to a man walking in the desert for days. The parched man will 
surely take it and wonder why you even bothered to mock him with such 
a paltry offer. This is terrible news and we need to act quickly.


The FCC has created the logical platform to move ahead in allowing the 
unlicensed use of unused television channels in its 04-186 rulemaking 
which it has allowed to leave in a limbo state and tasking the FCC 
with passing their own rulemaking is the logical way to move forward 
and help the broadband industry. Believing that one 6 MHz channel for 
broadband use is helpful is just plain laughable and shows a complete 
lack of understanding of our problems in helping deliver broadband to 
rural and under-served citizens who are begging for access to 
broadband and cannot receive it from any source. These unused 
television channels will give them broadband. A single 6 MHz channel 
is not a true effort to help and is insulting to the public. Without 
several channels to allow for frequency reuse the single channel 
forces providers to either segme

Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum

[Tom DeReggi]

John, Well said.
I agree 6 mhz, a slap in the face.
I understood, Brad Larson's comment that 50Mhz is a lot to be thankk full 
for, when Marlon was suggesting that 50 Mhz was not enough, in critiquing 
Marlon's proposal. We learned with 900Mhz that we can do a lot with 30 Mhz, 
although tough.  But 6 Mhz, useless, and pointless.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum


Please read below and see my remarks on this feeble attempt to help 
Americans.


New spectrum legislation crafted
By Dan O'Shea

Apr 5, 2006 12:02 PM

Five members of the U.S. House of Representatives have announced new 
legislation that allow broadband wireless carriers and other companies to 
use television spectrum in the band between 608 Mhz and 614 MHz for 
unlicensed wireless services.


The legislation was introduced by Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and his co- 
sponsors Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Paul Gillmor 
(R-Ohio) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.).


The Telecommunications Industry Association applauded the move. Agency 
president Matthew Flanigan, said in a statement, "TIA believes that these 
proposals could provide for more efficient and effective use of the 
television broadcast spectrum, as well as have significant benefits for 
the public by increasing competition in the wireless broadband industry 
and providing incentives for the development of new and innovative 
broadband devices and services for businesses and consumers.

http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/regulatory/House_spectrum_bill_040506/

My thoughts:
The House bill to give us a single 6 MHz channel is far too little to help 
and could even be regarded as a slap in the face if you have been starved 
for the quality spectrum we need to do the job as we all have for so long. 
This does not match the legislation being introduced by the Senate at all 
and could lead to making this a dead issue instead of helping bring 
broadband to the masses as intended. It does not surprise me that the TIA 
has applauded this as it serves their purposes of holding our efforts 
back. They would prefer to either have only licensed spectrum which acts 
as a means of keeping competitors out of the wireless space or as we see 
here they would like to see competing offers from the Senate and House so 
that the true opportunity as outlined in the FCC 04-186 is locked in 
debate and taken off the table to meet some compromise or worse yet the 
effort is killed from having too little common ground to pass a vote from 
both sides of Congress.


If any of you are in the states of Washington, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Ohio 
or Virginia I certainly hope you will call your Reps today and let them 
know that 6 MHz of spectrum is like giving a spoonful of water to a man 
walking in the desert for days. The parched man will surely take it and 
wonder why you even bothered to mock him with such a paltry offer. This is 
terrible news and we need to act quickly.


The FCC has created the logical platform to move ahead in allowing the 
unlicensed use of unused television channels in its 04-186 rulemaking 
which it has allowed to leave in a limbo state and tasking the FCC with 
passing their own rulemaking is the logical way to move forward and help 
the broadband industry. Believing that one 6 MHz channel for broadband use 
is helpful is just plain laughable and shows a complete lack of 
understanding of our problems in helping deliver broadband to rural and 
under-served citizens who are begging for access to broadband and cannot 
receive it from any source. These unused television channels will give 
them broadband. A single 6 MHz channel is not a true effort to help and is 
insulting to the public. Without several channels to allow for frequency 
reuse the single channel forces providers to either segment the single 
channel into minuscule sizes delivering substandard speeds or face almost 
certain interference as multiple attempts to use the same small 6 MHz 
channel space would interfere with adjacent efforts from other operators 
doing the same. In short this is not worthy of consideration and should be 
scrapped.


The only logical step is for the House of Representatives to pass 
legislation which will task the FCC to pass its 04-186 rulemaking which 
will open unused television channels up for use as unlicensed carriage of 
broadband to Americans. This is not just important, it is mandatory if we 
are to truly close the "Digital Divide" which is now wider than ever due 
to a lack of quality spectrum able to do the job. The problem is not that 
rural Americans do not want broadband or that private enterprise has 
failed them in some way, the problem is that the thousands of Wireless 
Internet Service Providers who serve them lack the necessary spectrum to 
bring their citizens the

Re: [WISPA] Cisco Mesh Equipment

[John J. Thomas]

All of the above

The controller has RSSI, several graphs, both current and historical, other APs 
seen, and a few other things we haven't completely dug into.

When we get back down there, I will get a list of all the monitoring it 
supports and give a better review.

John



>-Original Message-
>From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2006 05:56 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cisco Mesh Equipment
>
>Define monitoring?
>
>Up down status, or real time and historical data of link characteristics and 
>health?
>
>Tom DeReggi
>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
>- Original Message - 
>From: "John J. Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "WISPA General List" 
>Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:23 AM
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cisco Mesh Equipment
>
>
>
>If it would stop raining..
>
>
>We don't have it all deployed yet, but here is what we know.
>
>They take a long time to boot, maybe 5 minutes.
>
>The range is poor, they are supposed to put out 26 dBm per Cisco, but they 
>only put out 14 dBm per the controller interface. We questioned Cisco on 
>this, and they calimed that the 26 dB was the total of transmit + receive. 
>We are going to try to get an engineer to tell us what the radio is and what 
>the REAL output power is. If the power is truly on 14 dBm, that is not good.
>
>The 2.4 radios ar supposed to put out 25 dBm, but the controller interface 
>is only showing 17 dBm max. We are hoping that this is a limit in the BIOS 
>that can be changed.
>
>
>We had 1 link at 3600 feet with 1 tree in the way. 7.5 dB omni on each end 
>and no link. As soon as another engineer put a 1500 (Mesh AP) in his car and 
>got between the other two, the link came up. This is with one end on a 
>firehouse at about 35 feet and the other on a light pole at about 26 feet or 
>so.
>
>The monitoring is not what we expected-there doesn't seem to be any way to 
>monitor the 5 GHz backhauls, but the monitoring of the 2.4 is very good.
>
>We are waiting on the city to put in some long-range ethernet links between 
>the stoplights so we will actually have something to bridge.
>
>They currently only use 5.7-5.8 GHz, but 4.9 is supposed to be available 
>later this year.
>
>
>
>John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Dylan Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2006 06:09 PM
>>To: 'WISPA General List'
>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
>>
>>John,
>>
>>It's now April 5th. How are you faring with the Cisco mesh gear?
>>
>>On 3/1/06, John J. Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The Cisco radios can do 4.9-5.8 GHz. I am assuming that 5.3-5.7 will be 
>>> available in a update, since 4.9 is available now. Cisco apparently only 
>>> has 6-8 deployments so far, and they are releasing updates regularly.
>>>
>>> Our install is tentatively scheduled for March 14th, so I should be able 
>>> to post info shortly thereafter.
>>
>>Best,
>>--
>>Dylan Oliver
>>Primaverity, LLC
>>-- 
>>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 
>
>-- 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum

[John Scrivner]

Here is the text of the message I sent to Honorable John Shimkus of 
Illinois:


The current House Spectrum Bill brought forth by Inslee and others to 
give us a single 6 MHz channel is far too little to help Americans gain 
access to broadband options and could even be regarded as a slap in the 
face if you have been starved for the quality spectrum needed to do the 
job as we all have for so long. This does not match the legislation 
being introduced by the Senate Commerce Committee at all and could lead 
to making this a dead issue instead of helping bring broadband to the 
masses as intended. It does not surprise me that the Telephone Industry 
Association has applauded this as it serves their purposes of holding 
our efforts back. They would prefer to either have only licensed 
spectrum which acts as a means of keeping multiple competitors out of 
the wireless space or as we see here they would like to see competing 
offers from the Senate and House so that the true opportunity as 
outlined in the FCC 04-186 is locked in debate and taken off the table 
to meet some compromise or worse yet the effort is killed from having 
too little common ground to pass a vote from both sides of Congress.


This bill is like giving a spoonful of water to a man walking in the 
desert for days. The parched man will surely take it and  wonder why you 
even bothered to mock him with such a paltry offer.


The FCC has created the logical platform to move ahead in allowing the 
unlicensed use of unused television channels in its 04-186 rulemaking 
which it has allowed to leave in a limbo state and tasking the FCC with 
passing their own rulemaking is the logical way to move forward and help 
the broadband industry. Believing that one 6 MHz channel for broadband 
use is helpful is just plain laughable and shows a complete lack of 
understanding of our problems in helping deliver broadband to rural and 
under-served citizens who are begging for access to broadband and cannot 
receive it from any source. These unused television channels will give 
them broadband.


A single 6 MHz channel as proposed in the House Spectrum Bill is not a 
true effort to help and is insulting to the public. Without several 
channels to allow for frequency reuse the single channel forces 
providers to either segment the single channel into minuscule sizes 
delivering substandard speeds or face almost certain interference as 
multiple attempts to use the same small 6 MHz channel space would 
interfere with adjacent efforts from other operators doing the same. In 
short this is not worthy of consideration and should be scrapped.


The only logical step is for the House of Representatives to pass 
legislation which will task the FCC to pass its 04-186 rulemaking which 
will open unused television channels up for use as unlicensed carriage 
of broadband to Americans. This is not just important, it is mandatory 
if we are to truly close the "Digital Divide" which is now wider than 
ever due to a lack of quality spectrum able to do the job. The problem 
is not that rural Americans do not want broadband or that private 
enterprise has failed them in some way, the problem is that the 
thousands of Wireless Internet Service Providers who serve them lack the 
necessary spectrum to bring their citizens the broadband they are 
begging to receive.


Honorable John Shimkus, as representative of our mainly rural district 
in Illinois, I am begging you to please consider drafting and submitting 
a competing bill to the House which will task the FCC with finishing 
what they started and passing the 04-186 rulemaking which is the path to 
universal access to low-cost broadband opportunity for all Americans.


I will gladly buy a plane ticket and come to Washington to speak in 
person on this important issue if you so desire. Please act quickly so 
we may see the promise of broadband to all Americans soon. Tasking the 
FCC to pass 04-186 would do more to stimulate broadband availability 
than anything ever proposed by our legislature. Please take the lead in 
this important endeavor and let's give rural citizens equal access to 
the Digital American Dream. Say NO to the current House Spectrum Bill 
and submit a competing proposal that has a chance to do some good.

Respectfully,
John Scrivner

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum

[Scott Reed]

Yep, I just used it to write my representative.

Scott Reed 


Owner 


NewWays 


Wireless Networking 


Network Design, Installation and Administration 


www.nwwnet.net 




-- Original Message 
---

From: Dawn DiPietro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 


To: WISPA General List  


Sent: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 10:20:44 -0400 


Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum 



> Mario, 
> 
> 

It worked for me. 
> 
> 

Regards, 
> 

Dawn 
> 
> 

Mario Pommier wrote: 
> 
> 

> just fyi, that link doesn't find anything. 
> 

> 
> 

> M 
> 

> 
> 

> John Scrivner wrote: 
> 

> 
> 

>>  
> 

>> 
> 

>> Now I want you guys, all of you guys, to go to  
> 

>> http://www.house.gov/writerep/ and write a letter to your 
Rep. The  
> 

>> site will find your rep by zip code for you. Even if you are not in  

> 

>> the states where this laughable legislation originated you need to  

> 

>> speak out. We obviously do not want to alienate the whole House of  

> 

>> Representatives but we do need them to understand that this is not  

> 

>> going to come close to doing the job they are trying to do and that  

> 

>> this is not going to fix anything unless we have access to a larger  

> 

>> amount of quality spectrum. So please go now and make this happen,  

> 

>> right now, in the next 10 minutes. 
> 

>> Scriv 
> 

>> 
> 

>> 
> 

>> Dawn DiPietro wrote: 
> 

>> 
> 

>>> All, 
> 

>>> 
> 

>>> Could this be good news for WISP's? Any thoughts on how this may  

> 

>>> affect the wireless industry? 
> 

>>> 
> 

>>> 
> 

>>> 
> 

>>> 
> 

>>> 
> 

>>> Regards, 
> 

>>> Dawn 
> 

>>> --- 
> 

>>> --- 
> 

>>> 
> 

> --- 
> 

> [This e-mail was scanned for viruses by our AntiVirus Protection System] 

> 

> 
> 
> 

--- 
> 

--- 
> 
> 

--  
> 

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org 
> 
> 

Subscribe/Unsubscribe: 
> 

http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 
> 

> 

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 
--- 
End of Original Message 
---






-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum

[Dawn DiPietro]

Mario,

It worked for me.

Regards,
Dawn

Mario Pommier wrote:


just fyi, that link doesn't find anything.

M

John Scrivner wrote:




Now I want you guys, all of you guys, to go to 
http://www.house.gov/writerep/ and write a letter to your Rep. The 
site will find your rep by zip code for you. Even if you are not in 
the states where this laughable legislation originated you need to 
speak out. We obviously do not want to alienate the whole House of 
Representatives but we do need them to understand that this is not 
going to come close to doing the job they are trying to do and that 
this is not going to fix anything unless we have access to a larger 
amount of quality spectrum. So please go now and make this happen, 
right now, in the next 10 minutes.

Scriv


Dawn DiPietro wrote:


All,

Could this be good news for WISP's? Any thoughts on how this may 
affect the wireless industry?






Regards,
Dawn
---
---


---
[This e-mail was scanned for viruses by our AntiVirus Protection System]



---
---

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum

[Mario Pommier]

just fyi, that link doesn't find anything.

M

John Scrivner wrote:




Now I want you guys, all of you guys, to go to 
http://www.house.gov/writerep/ and write a letter to your Rep. The 
site will find your rep by zip code for you. Even if you are not in 
the states where this laughable legislation originated you need to 
speak out. We obviously do not want to alienate the whole House of 
Representatives but we do need them to understand that this is not 
going to come close to doing the job they are trying to do and that 
this is not going to fix anything unless we have access to a larger 
amount of quality spectrum. So please go now and make this happen, 
right now, in the next 10 minutes.

Scriv


Dawn DiPietro wrote:


All,

Could this be good news for WISP's? Any thoughts on how this may 
affect the wireless industry?






Regards,
Dawn
---
---


---
[This e-mail was scanned for viruses by our AntiVirus Protection System]

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

[Matt Liotta]

I'll take a wireless link over a T1 any day if for no other reason then 
the wireless link will be more reliable. You're never going to suffer 
the loss of a link due to a backhoe or a drunk driver hitting a pole, 
which are the two most likely reasons for a T1 failure.


Personally, I believe that fixed wireless is truly better and I would 
argue someone has no business working for a fixed wireless company if 
they don't believe it too.


-Matt

Travis Johnson wrote:


Tom,

The original postition and question was "are you comparing your 
wireless service to telco T1". After your posts, it's obvious that you 
are... and I would argue that a land-based line will ALWAYS be better 
than wireless, with all other factors being the same. Now, if you are 
able to save the customer $xx per month by using wireless, then there 
is an advantage. If you can provide other services, then there is an 
advantage. However, comparing a half-duplex system to a full-duplex 
system and saying they are the same is... not correct.


If you had the choice between running a full-duplex wireless system 
and half-duplex, which would you do? :)


If you could purchase a land-based connection to go from point A to 
point B for $500 per month, or rent roof-top space at point A and 
point B for $500 per month, which would you choose? ;)


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Travis,

I'd love to perform your test.
Send me the CD.
Understanding that I will provision the customer at 3 mbps on our 
first hop router, using Trango 10mbps PtMP radio link, and that your 
CD test will generate 1500mbps of data transfer.


There are three seperate issues here. 1) One user's connection able 
to effect another user's connection, and 2) On one particular link, 
their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under normal 
opperation within acceptable use policy, and 3) On one particular 
link, their upload traffic effecting their download traffic, under a 
Denial of Service situation.


With any type of broadband, if the capacity of a link is saturated, 
it results in packet loss and performance loss for the individual's 
connection. Its up to the end user to protect against violation of 
acceptable use policy like viruses that deliver abnormal PPS, or any 
queueing needed to allow fair priority of data type on the LAN side 
of the link. These problems can also all be solved with a feature 
rich client side router before plugging to our Broadband, regardless 
of the Duplex of our link.  In other words, The same performance 
problems will result on a full Duplex link, if one direction gets 
saturated, and that same direction traffic will result in packet 
loss, and all communication generally requires some communication in 
each of the direction for traffic to flow in one direction.  So where 
the problem may be worse with Half Duplex, the problem still exists 
in some capacity with Full Duplex. I'd argue that its possible to 
generate enough pps on a Full Duplex Link in one direction, that will 
overload the processing power of the radio CPU, and the other 
direction still getting horrible performance even with no traffic 
passing in that other direction even though Full Duplex, because no 
CPU time is available for it. Unless each direction has its own CPU, 
which is not likely.  This is an issue of whether the radio used can 
handle the number of PPS sent to it in high DOS situations.


I'd also argue under this situation 4000 pps 1500 mbps, that the 
customer's use of the circuit in any capacity when a DOS of that type 
was happening, would be not possible, and justify immediate tech 
action to resolve, regardless of whether one direction of traffic was 
usable.  I;ve never met a company where having one direction traffic 
only was acceptable or tolerable.


You did however hit on an important clarification. A half duplex link 
can not distinguish on its own wether upload or download traffic at a 
given moment is priority or more important to the subscriber. When 
there is a large demand for legitimate broadband, why would the data 
in one direction be any more priority than the other, when capacity 
is reached? Either way the customer is compromised in throughout 
needs one direction or another. Doesn't it really mean that the 
customer needs more total bandwidth? Is it any more important that 
mail was sent and not received?  Full Duplex is one way for a 
customer to solve that problem, and reserve bandwdith in one 
direction. But does that really solve the problem? Maybe if the 
circuit's intended use is for 100% VOIP a symetrical application.  
But not many circuits are used for that purpose.  And if I really 
wanted to, I can set my bandwdith management to be seperate for 
upload and download, and immulate a Full Duplex connection, over the 
half duplex link. But what it really says to me is the importance 
that customers have front end queuing / IP prioritization when using 
bi-directional sensitive applications such as VOIP.


T

Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum

[John Scrivner]

Please read below and see my remarks on this feeble attempt to help 
Americans.


New spectrum legislation crafted
By Dan O'Shea

Apr 5, 2006 12:02 PM

Five members of the U.S. House of Representatives have announced new 
legislation that allow broadband wireless carriers and other companies 
to use television spectrum in the band between 608 Mhz and 614 MHz for 
unlicensed wireless services.


The legislation was introduced by Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and his co- 
sponsors Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Paul 
Gillmor (R-Ohio) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.).


The Telecommunications Industry Association applauded the move. Agency 
president Matthew Flanigan, said in a statement, "TIA believes that 
these proposals could provide for more efficient and effective use of 
the television broadcast spectrum, as well as have significant benefits 
for the public by increasing competition in the wireless broadband 
industry and providing incentives for the development of new and 
innovative broadband devices and services for businesses and consumers.

http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/regulatory/House_spectrum_bill_040506/

My thoughts:
The House bill to give us a single 6 MHz channel is far too little to 
help and could even be regarded as a slap in the face if you have been 
starved for the quality spectrum we need to do the job as we all have 
for so long. This does not match the legislation being introduced by the 
Senate at all and could lead to making this a dead issue instead of 
helping bring broadband to the masses as intended. It does not surprise 
me that the TIA has applauded this as it serves their purposes of 
holding our efforts back. They would prefer to either have only licensed 
spectrum which acts as a means of keeping competitors out of the 
wireless space or as we see here they would like to see competing offers 
from the Senate and House so that the true opportunity as outlined in 
the FCC 04-186 is locked in debate and taken off the table to meet some 
compromise or worse yet the effort is killed from having too little 
common ground to pass a vote from both sides of Congress.


If any of you are in the states of Washington, Tennessee, Wisconsin, 
Ohio or Virginia I certainly hope you will call your Reps today and let 
them know that 6 MHz of spectrum is like giving a spoonful of water to a 
man walking in the desert for days. The parched man will surely take it 
and  wonder why you even bothered to mock him with such a paltry offer. 
This is terrible news and we need to act quickly.


The FCC has created the logical platform to move ahead in allowing the 
unlicensed use of unused television channels in its 04-186 rulemaking 
which it has allowed to leave in a limbo state and tasking the FCC with 
passing their own rulemaking is the logical way to move forward and help 
the broadband industry. Believing that one 6 MHz channel for broadband 
use is helpful is just plain laughable and shows a complete lack of 
understanding of our problems in helping deliver broadband to rural and 
under-served citizens who are begging for access to broadband and cannot 
receive it from any source. These unused television channels will give 
them broadband. A single 6 MHz channel is not a true effort to help and 
is insulting to the public. Without several channels to allow for 
frequency reuse the single channel forces providers to either segment 
the single channel into minuscule sizes delivering substandard speeds or 
face almost certain interference as multiple attempts to use the same 
small 6 MHz channel space would interfere with adjacent efforts from 
other operators doing the same. In short this is not worthy of 
consideration and should be scrapped.


The only logical step is for the House of Representatives to pass 
legislation which will task the FCC to pass its 04-186 rulemaking which 
will open unused television channels up for use as unlicensed carriage 
of broadband to Americans. This is not just important, it is mandatory 
if we are to truly close the "Digital Divide" which is now wider than 
ever due to a lack of quality spectrum able to do the job. The problem 
is not that rural Americans do not want broadband or that private 
enterprise has failed them in some way, the problem is that the 
thousands of Wireless Internet Service Providers who serve them lack the 
necessary spectrum to bring their citizens the broadband they are 
begging to receive.


Now I want you guys, all of you guys, to go to 
http://www.house.gov/writerep/ and write a letter to your Rep. The site 
will find your rep by zip code for you. Even if you are not in the 
states where this laughable legislation originated you need to speak 
out. We obviously do not want to alienate the whole House of 
Representatives but we do need them to understand that this is not going 
to come close to doing the job they are trying to do and that this is 
not going to fix anything unless we have access to a larger amount of 
q

Re: [WISPA] CPE Cost Ideas Needed

[Pete Davis]

We were in a similar position when we started our WISP in 2002, and we 
went exclusively with Waverider CPE ($500+ at that time) and we found 
that the market would not bear more than $200 setup (we now only charge 
$149). It was/is also our thinking that a contract to lock them into 
service wouldn't make sense either. If they don't want to pay the last 8 
months of service because they cannot afford it, because they don't like 
the service, or whatever, then I wouldn't help grow the business by 
suing them, so a contract wouldn't make sense. We do have them sign a 
"limited liability" agreement, where they agree to, among other things,  
return the CPE or pay us $995.00 when they disconnect. They also agree 
not to break any laws or intentionally cause any problems with the 
service, etc etc.


I also don't think people want a LOT of complicated options when they 
sign up for service. I think you will be better off offering a $200 
setup and $49/mo (we started at $59 residential, and dropped to $39) 
for  service.
After the 15 or 20 customers are online that pay for the upstream 
broadband (depending on what you are paying),  you can have the CPE pay 
for itself 4 months if you don't outsource the installations. Then, 8 
Customers will buy 1 CPE/month, and 64 will buy 8/mo and so on.


The numbers don't always exactly work that way, since employees want to 
be paid, the van will need gas, tires and oil,  email servers will need 
service/repair/upgrades, and some customers will need a $100 worth of 
masts, cables, guy wires, etc to get them installed.


What you may want to consider is giving a free/discounted installation 
if the customer will pre-pay 12 months service. We offer a 10% discount 
on the service/installation if they pre-pay 12 months.


What we learned: We wished we had implemented lower cost 802.11b 
AP/CPE's alongside the Waverider gear sooner. We waited over a year 
before we did that, and figured out that we didn't have to wait 12 to 18 
months for a customer to be cash flow positive. Now, its less than 5 
months. Less than 1 if I don't outsource the installation ($125 to 
contractor), and I put it in myself, and collect the $150 setup + 1st 
month service and put in a $120 CPE.


Pete Davis
NoDial.net

Joshua M. Andrews wrote:
I'm about to get my first WISP up and running but the major factor 
that's holding me back is the initial cost of the CPE's.  I've decided 
to go with WaveWireless (formerly WaveRider) 900Mhz but the lowest 
prices are around $350 or so.  I've been thinking of pitching the 
service by saying the following:
 
Option 1:  1 Year Contract and install is $295.95.

Option 2:  2 Year Contract and install is $195.95.
Option 3:  3 Year Contract and install is $99.95.
Option 4:  4 Year Contract and install is FREE.
 
Anybody else have any suggestions to help offset the initial cost per 
customer in this regard?  Thanks in advance.
 
Sincerely,
 
Joshua M. Andrews

Support Corps of America
www.SupportCorps.us 


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/301 - Release Date: 4/4/2006
  


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] CPE Cost Ideas Needed

[Mac Dearman]

Thats what we do - - - No contracts and if we can use a Tranzeo TR-CPQ to 
connect thjem it is a $200.00
set up/install fee + router ($50.00) and first months service ($50.00) and 
we maintain ownership of the CPE. If it takes a Trango 900MHz CPE to catch 
them - - the install/setup fee goes to $400.00 :-) and I still own the CPE



Mac Dearman
Maximum Access, LLC.
Authorized Barracuda Reseller
MikroTik RouterOS Certified
www.inetsouth.com
www.mac-tel.us
www.RadioResponse.org (Katrina Relief)
Rayville, La.
318.728.8600
318.303.4228
318.303.4229





- Original Message - 
From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CPE Cost Ideas Needed


Be tough to get a 4 year contract. Plus how are you going to enforce these 
contracts?

Who owns the CPE after install?
Who takes care of maintenance?

How about a Priority install charge to help off-set the CPE?

Regards,

Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc.
4isps.com
marketingideaguy.com


Joshua M. Andrews wrote:

I'm about to get my first WISP up and running but the major factor that's 
holding me back is the initial cost of the CPE's.  I've decided to go 
with WaveWireless (formerly WaveRider) 900Mhz but the lowest prices are 
around $350 or so.  I've been thinking of pitching the service by saying 
the following:

 Option 1:  1 Year Contract and install is $295.95.
Option 2:  2 Year Contract and install is $195.95.
Option 3:  3 Year Contract and install is $99.95.
Option 4:  4 Year Contract and install is FREE.
 Anybody else have any suggestions to help offset the initial cost per 
customer in this regard?  Thanks in advance.

 Sincerely,
 Joshua M. Andrews
Support Corps of America
www.SupportCorps.us 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum

[Tom DeReggi]

Not at 6 mhz of spectrum only.
Where did the rest of it go?
WISPs need atleast 30 Mhz.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" ; 


Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 6:16 AM
Subject: [WISPA] TV spectrum



All,

Could this be good news for WISP's? Any thoughts on how this may affect 
the wireless industry?




New spectrum legislation crafted
By Dan O'Shea

Apr 5, 2006 12:02 PM

Five members of the U.S. House of Representatives have announced new 
legislation that allow broadband wireless carriers and other companies to 
use television spectrum in the band between 608 Mhz and 614 MHz for 
unlicensed wireless services.


The legislation was introduced by Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and his co- 
sponsors Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Paul Gillmor 
(R-Ohio) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.).


The Telecommunications Industry Association applauded the move. Agency 
president Matthew Flanigan, said in a statement, "TIA believes that these 
proposals could provide for more efficient and effective use of the 
television broadcast spectrum, as well as have significant benefits for 
the public by increasing competition in the wireless broadband industry 
and providing incentives for the development of new and innovative 
broadband devices and services for businesses and consumers.

http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/regulatory/House_spectrum_bill_040506/

Original press release below;
http://www.tiaonline.org/business/media/press_releases/2006/PR06-31.cfm

Regards,
Dawn
---
---

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Cisco Mesh Equipment

[Tom DeReggi]

Define monitoring?

Up down status, or real time and historical data of link characteristics and 
health?


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "John J. Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:23 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cisco Mesh Equipment



If it would stop raining..


We don't have it all deployed yet, but here is what we know.

They take a long time to boot, maybe 5 minutes.

The range is poor, they are supposed to put out 26 dBm per Cisco, but they 
only put out 14 dBm per the controller interface. We questioned Cisco on 
this, and they calimed that the 26 dB was the total of transmit + receive. 
We are going to try to get an engineer to tell us what the radio is and what 
the REAL output power is. If the power is truly on 14 dBm, that is not good.


The 2.4 radios ar supposed to put out 25 dBm, but the controller interface 
is only showing 17 dBm max. We are hoping that this is a limit in the BIOS 
that can be changed.



We had 1 link at 3600 feet with 1 tree in the way. 7.5 dB omni on each end 
and no link. As soon as another engineer put a 1500 (Mesh AP) in his car and 
got between the other two, the link came up. This is with one end on a 
firehouse at about 35 feet and the other on a light pole at about 26 feet or 
so.


The monitoring is not what we expected-there doesn't seem to be any way to 
monitor the 5 GHz backhauls, but the monitoring of the 2.4 is very good.


We are waiting on the city to put in some long-range ethernet links between 
the stoplights so we will actually have something to bridge.


They currently only use 5.7-5.8 GHz, but 4.9 is supposed to be available 
later this year.




John







-Original Message-
From: Dylan Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2006 06:09 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

John,

It's now April 5th. How are you faring with the Cisco mesh gear?

On 3/1/06, John J. Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Cisco radios can do 4.9-5.8 GHz. I am assuming that 5.3-5.7 will be 
available in a update, since 4.9 is available now. Cisco apparently only 
has 6-8 deployments so far, and they are releasing updates regularly.


Our install is tentatively scheduled for March 14th, so I should be able 
to post info shortly thereafter.


Best,
--
Dylan Oliver
Primaverity, LLC
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] OT - Wish I owned this domain name...

[Victoria]

I think this shows how much wireless has grown over the years, as well as
the price of domain names really getting some big bucks.  
http://www.ereleases.com/pr/20060405009.html

I have invested in domains and currently have about 300, most of which are
.us ext.  I think I have some good wireless domains if anyone is interested
in helping develop, like WISPPromotions.com, WISPCalendar.com,
WISP-Chat.com, WiFi-Chat.com, WiMaxSwitch.com/.net, but nothing like
GoWireless.com.

~V~

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

RE: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

[Victoria]

Hadn't thought about it that way...so our 5 Mbps/1 Mbps link would be a 6
Mbps link.

Yep, a name is an important marketing tool.  
I think our name St. Louis Broadband helps us out (stlbroadband.com and
stlouisbroadband.com), but if we ever want to expand our territory, we would
have a problem. 

Victoria

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 1:14 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband

We don't, but there is no need to.

3 mbps half duplex = 1.5 mbps full duplex.
(Actually bettter, because when upload speed not used, its there to be used
for high speeds in the other direction.)

Our router bandwidth management allows setting speed in both directions
(using HTB).

Its one marketing trick that works to our advantage.
We advertise symetrical, not simultaneous Full Duplex.

That means we have same speed both directions, not top speed in both
directions at the same time.
So a client pushing 2 mbps down and 1 mbps up, would equal a 3 mbps link.
We can advertise speeds up to the max speed someone can acheive in a
specific direction.
Because most clients do not use equal speed in both direction, nuch of their
Full Duplex bandwidth just goes wasted and unused on T1s.

So 3 mbps is perceived as twice the speed than their T1 for those that don;t
catch the difference between full and half duplex. And a great replacement
for their T1.  Those that do understand the difference, well, we are still
offering equivellent capacity.

What also works to our advantage is that T1 providers also generally don't
offer guaranteed bandwidth either. A T1 might be as low as $500 a month, but
if the buy a true MCI guaranteed bandwidth circuit, paying 95%tile, they'd
easilly be paying over $1000 buck for the T1 link. So technically
competitor's T1s are MIR bandwidth under their SLA. So we also spec our
product at MIR.  We stay away from any term like Best Effort associated with
commodity services like DSL.

The second we take out local loop costs, we can always be more cost
effective, with out sacrificing quality on the link at the back end, because
we actually ahve a lower front end cost.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband


> Tom,
>
> Are you saying that you compare your wireless service to T1 telco service?

> How are you doing full-duplex with wireless?
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> Tom DeReggi wrote:
>
>> Chris,
>>
>> I agree with your finding.
>> But its possible your focus group did not get all the fact. (Or what was 
>> the finding?)
>> For example, its not only important to determine what terms the customer 
>> best recognizes and identify with, but also what meaning they have for 
>> those terms that they identify with.
>>
>> For example, it does not surprise me a bit, that "High Speed Internet" 
>> was the term that the consumer best identified with.
>> However, most people identify "High Speed Internet" as much with DialUP 
>> service as they do with "Broadband".
>> And if not identified with DialUP, its then identifies with DSL or Cable 
>> services.  Why do we want to create the image of offering commodity 
>> services, design for huge over subscription, low repair SLAs, and best 
>> effort?
>>
>> Do you consider cable and DSL as a good or bad thing, as far as setting 
>> standards for quality?
>>
>> We don't want to be identified as that.  We want to be something better.
>>
>> Now if you are offering lower quality, best effort, Wifi services to your

>> clients, and you are striving to be a competitor to Cable and DSL 
>> quality, sure Brand the product as DSL, and its a good thing.  And please

>> do so, so your wireless is not identified with what we offer, branding 
>> high quality fiber extension and T1 replacement services.
>>
>> In your focus group did you get any results on their perception of 
>> quality that they associated with Cable and DSL or the term "High Speed 
>> Internet"?
>>
>> Would you suggest branding your T1 or Fiber offerings as "High Speed 
>> Internet", since customers best identify with that term?
>>
>> Maybe we should be branding our service as "Wi-Fiber". or Maybe "Ethernet

>> Internet Access"  (of course like end users will know what Ethernet 
>> means.)
>>
>> Its a tough call because if we called our service "Fiber" or "T1" we'd 
>> most likely be liars based on their true definitions.
>> Nothing exists realting to quality for us to piggy back on.
>>
>> All though "Broadband" may not be as well recognized, its doesn;t 
>> associate us with Telcos or Cable companies necessarilly.
>> Broadband is truthfully defined as a general term to cover any media type

>> of delivery of Internet Access.
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> In

[WISPA] TV spectrum

[Dawn DiPietro]

All,

Could this be good news for WISP's? Any thoughts on how this may affect 
the wireless industry?




New spectrum legislation crafted
By Dan O'Shea

Apr 5, 2006 12:02 PM

Five members of the U.S. House of Representatives have announced new 
legislation that allow broadband wireless carriers and other companies 
to use television spectrum in the band between 608 Mhz and 614 MHz for 
unlicensed wireless services.


The legislation was introduced by Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and his co- 
sponsors Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Paul 
Gillmor (R-Ohio) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.).


The Telecommunications Industry Association applauded the move. Agency 
president Matthew Flanigan, said in a statement, "TIA believes that 
these proposals could provide for more efficient and effective use of 
the television broadcast spectrum, as well as have significant benefits 
for the public by increasing competition in the wireless broadband 
industry and providing incentives for the development of new and 
innovative broadband devices and services for businesses and consumers.

http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/regulatory/House_spectrum_bill_040506/

Original press release below;
http://www.tiaonline.org/business/media/press_releases/2006/PR06-31.cfm

Regards,
Dawn
---
---

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/