RE: [WISPA] Zcomax has WIMAX?

[tonylist]

Few things of info:
- 3.5Ghz is not not license free in the, 50Mhz at 3.65 is 
but there are issue with using this with WiMax
- WiMax does NOT do any more at 2.4Ghz or 5Ghz then 
the products on the market today in reference to RF not 
protocol. 
- The WiMax protocol has many cool features but are based 
on a model where there is little or no interface. 
- I would not expect to see any WiMax product near pricing 
most WISP pay today to mid 2007 end 2008. I am sure by then there will be sub 
$100 CPE using the other standards which will have most if not all the 
features WiMax has in the spec.
 

Sincerely, Tony MorellaDemarc 
Technology Group, A Wireless Solution ProviderOffice: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008http://www.demarctech.com 
 
This communication constitutes an electronic communication 
within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, 
and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender 
of this message. This communication may contain  confidential and 
privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by 
anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the 
confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or 
distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended 
recipient please contact the sender by return electronic mail and delete all 
copies of this communication
 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jenco 
WirelessSent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:50 PMTo: WISPA 
General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] Zcomax has 
WIMAX?

Why is the 3.5 Wi-Max license free band not approved in the U.S. ???  

 
 
-- Brad H 
On 6/12/06, George 
Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
http://www.zcom.com.tw/news001.htm--George 
  Rogato Welcome to WISPAwww.wispa.orghttp://signup.wispa.org/--WISPA 
  Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: 
  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] Zcomax has WIMAX?

[Jenco Wireless]

Why is the 3.5 Wi-Max license free band not approved in the U.S. ???  
 
 
-- Brad H 
On 6/12/06, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://www.zcom.com.tw/news001.htm--George Rogato
Welcome to WISPAwww.wispa.orghttp://signup.wispa.org/--WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: 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] looking for a device

[David Sovereen]

We just completed converting our network from routed to bridged.  Where each 
AP (we run Mikrotik) used to do its own DHCP and PPPoE to customers and 
speak OSPF to the network, the APs (still Mikrotik) now bridge traffic to a 
regional Mikrotik that handles PPPoE and DHCP for that region.  We are using 
RSTP.  In this way, people can roam from one tower to another and their DHCP 
lease is still good at the next tower.  A region for us to 3 to 4 counties.


We converted our first region about a month ago and finished the last one 
last weekend.  We're very pleased with the results so far.


Dave

- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 9:22 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] looking for a device


It is worth noting that you lose the benefits of routing protocols when you
bridge your network

Sure, there's always RSTP... (heh)

Many larger wireless / Wifi based architecture these days seem to be
favoring a layer 3 tunneling / handoff method over a bridged layer 2 network

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 5:30 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device


To clarify

The term I referred to as "Double VLAN" is not the technically correct name
(thats just what I call it), it is actually called "Q in Q" as stated by
several in this thread.

One of the reasons this is valuable is for a wholesale network. It basically

allows you to create a single VLAN end to end across your network for a
subscriber or reseller, and still use VLAN for your local needs to operate
your network.

I'll give an example of where I might use VLAN for my network need. I have a

single fiber connection from the basement to the roof.  On the roof I have a

VLAN switch and 6 sector radios. I have a router in the basement.  I could
then seperate data between the different radio traffic by giving a unique
VLAN to the Ethernet port that each sector radio connects to, and route
between them in my basement router.

I'll give an example of where I'd use a VLAN end to end for a reseller.
Reseller has a connection between me and them at one point on my network.
The reseller might provide the backbone and IPs. The client routes the
customers traffic to a specific VLAN when entering my network. I then have
that VLAN configured across my network until reaches the end user's building

router that terminates the VLAN.

Now what happens when the resellers customer (example 2) resides in the
building (example 1)?  Normally two VLANs can't exist simultaneously as teh
switch wouldn;t know which ID to tag data with.  Q in Q VLAN would allow one

VLAN ID to reside in side of another VLAN.  Its the same concept as
tunnelling, except for its not.

Now how does this apply to radios that support Q in Q? Depends. Use your
imagination. The first problem is can the radio pass Q in Q VLAN data?
Second can it tag it? Being able to tag VLAN data at the radio level can be
extremely useful. First off it avoids having to configure a second device
(VLAN switch) that complicates the automation of configurations.  Part of
the Idea is that CLECs and Governement, are all high on Security, and they
do not want to have to coordinate complex IP models between their systems
and the wholesalers, instead they want to be able to send traffic LAyer2 and

seperate traffic so one client does not have the abilty to see the other
client's traffic.  Its sort of an Ethernet way of doing a Private Virtual
Circuit.

The only problem with VLAN is you need to have every component of you
network that passes VLANs to be able to pass large packets so Full MTU can
be delivered to clients. This is one of the limits to Wifi and regular
switches, is many Wifi devices and all non managed switches do not pass
large packets.

Radio like Trango and Alvarion (with Q in Q support) have the abilty to pass

large packets.

The other advantage of VLAN is that when used across a PtMP design and VLAN
support at CPE, it allows doing remote banwdith management based on the
customers circuit ID, and having a way to distinguish and differentiate the
data.

Q in Q, gives the provider flexibilty on how and when they would like to use

VLAN and in multiple ways simultaneously.

Its uncertain how Q in Q will be used for sure, as VLAN does add much
complexity over say a basic bridged design.  Part of the benefit, is that
redundancy is not always supported in an ideal way when VLAN is used. By
allowing a VLAN end to end encapsulated in the other packets, it potentially

could allow avoiding the pitfalls that limit redundancy by having the end
locations (the reseller and the client) the one tagging  the VLAN and
knowing that that VLAN info survives any other VLAN tagging that may happen
on the network, or for that matter

[WISPA] Zcomax has WIMAX?

[George Rogato]

http://www.zcom.com.tw/news001.htm


--
George Rogato

Welcome to WISPA

www.wispa.org

http://signup.wispa.org/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] looking for a device

[Charles Wu]

Q in Q, means that the provider does not need to remove his VLAN tags. The 
customer's VLAN tags can survive teh VLAN tags that the provider adds.
Customer has VLAN 10.  Provider tags VLAN20 on top, crosses network as 
VLAN20 data, Provider untags VLAN20 data, packet delivered to customer on 
VLAN10 (as customer tagged it originally).


A better example of the benefits of QnQ is customer / provider VLAN tagging
conflicts
For example

Say the customer wants to pass VLAN#2 between 2 remote offices going through
your network -- problem is, VLAN#2 happens to be your management VLAN -- so
if you want to bridge the VLAN across your network, it won't work correctly
unless someone (either you or the customer) gives up the VLAN#2 tag.  QnQ
solves this issue by encapsalating the customer VLAN (in this case, #2) in
some arbitrarily assigned VLAN tag on the provider network

That said, it seems like tunneling would be an easier solution...e.g L2TP or
if you're a Mikrotik fan, EoIP

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 5:36 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device




An example of where its useful is... What if a customer has multiple 
locations in a Wide Area PtMP topology, and wants the data seperated? What 
if the Customer is another term for a wholesaler's reseller ISP? It gives 
the customer/reseller the abilty to segment with VLANs, without respect to 
what the provider may need to do with VLAN themselves.

This example is a little different than My last post, as noth VLAN taggers 
may have their VLAN IDs pass multiple network segments. But the poitn is, it

doesn;t matter how dual VLANs are used, the flexibilty is there for a 
Provider to take advantage of however they feel fit.

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


- Original Message - 
From: "Eric Rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 12:51 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] looking for a device


It is also referred as 802.1q tagging... If it supports multiple layers, you
can have a customer VLAN tags within your network VLAN tags.  Just need your
equipment that takes off your tags before it gets to the customer.

AT&T uses the Cisco 3750 switches to do it at the customer's premises. Then
the customer can have VLAN 10 at one location and VLAN 10 at another, and it
is completely transparent to the end user.

If that made sense.

Eric

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Charles Wu
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 11:34 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] looking for a device

Google (or Cisco) is your friend

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5207/products_feature_
guid
e09186a00801f0f4a.html

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 8:39 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device


Can you or someone explain what double VLAN is? I have never heard of such a
thing. How can it be used to help us? Thanks, Scriv

>
> Yo may want to look at Alvarion. Alvarion does support VLAN. new 
> Firmware4 supports double VLAN also. Alvarion used to have one model 
> that was designed to have a second integrated radio into it.
> I can't remember if it was a 900/2.4 combo, or a 5.8/2.4 combo.
>
-- 
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/

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] looking for a device

[Charles Wu]

It is worth noting that you lose the benefits of routing protocols when you
bridge your network

Sure, there's always RSTP... (heh)

Many larger wireless / Wifi based architecture these days seem to be
favoring a layer 3 tunneling / handoff method over a bridged layer 2 network

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 5:30 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device


To clarify

The term I referred to as "Double VLAN" is not the technically correct name 
(thats just what I call it), it is actually called "Q in Q" as stated by 
several in this thread.

One of the reasons this is valuable is for a wholesale network. It basically

allows you to create a single VLAN end to end across your network for a 
subscriber or reseller, and still use VLAN for your local needs to operate 
your network.

I'll give an example of where I might use VLAN for my network need. I have a

single fiber connection from the basement to the roof.  On the roof I have a

VLAN switch and 6 sector radios. I have a router in the basement.  I could 
then seperate data between the different radio traffic by giving a unique 
VLAN to the Ethernet port that each sector radio connects to, and route 
between them in my basement router.

I'll give an example of where I'd use a VLAN end to end for a reseller. 
Reseller has a connection between me and them at one point on my network. 
The reseller might provide the backbone and IPs. The client routes the 
customers traffic to a specific VLAN when entering my network. I then have 
that VLAN configured across my network until reaches the end user's building

router that terminates the VLAN.

Now what happens when the resellers customer (example 2) resides in the 
building (example 1)?  Normally two VLANs can't exist simultaneously as teh 
switch wouldn;t know which ID to tag data with.  Q in Q VLAN would allow one

VLAN ID to reside in side of another VLAN.  Its the same concept as 
tunnelling, except for its not.

Now how does this apply to radios that support Q in Q? Depends. Use your 
imagination. The first problem is can the radio pass Q in Q VLAN data? 
Second can it tag it? Being able to tag VLAN data at the radio level can be 
extremely useful. First off it avoids having to configure a second device 
(VLAN switch) that complicates the automation of configurations.  Part of 
the Idea is that CLECs and Governement, are all high on Security, and they 
do not want to have to coordinate complex IP models between their systems 
and the wholesalers, instead they want to be able to send traffic LAyer2 and

seperate traffic so one client does not have the abilty to see the other 
client's traffic.  Its sort of an Ethernet way of doing a Private Virtual 
Circuit.

The only problem with VLAN is you need to have every component of you 
network that passes VLANs to be able to pass large packets so Full MTU can 
be delivered to clients. This is one of the limits to Wifi and regular 
switches, is many Wifi devices and all non managed switches do not pass 
large packets.

Radio like Trango and Alvarion (with Q in Q support) have the abilty to pass

large packets.

The other advantage of VLAN is that when used across a PtMP design and VLAN 
support at CPE, it allows doing remote banwdith management based on the 
customers circuit ID, and having a way to distinguish and differentiate the 
data.

Q in Q, gives the provider flexibilty on how and when they would like to use

VLAN and in multiple ways simultaneously.

Its uncertain how Q in Q will be used for sure, as VLAN does add much 
complexity over say a basic bridged design.  Part of the benefit, is that 
redundancy is not always supported in an ideal way when VLAN is used. By 
allowing a VLAN end to end encapsulated in the other packets, it potentially

could allow avoiding the pitfalls that limit redundancy by having the end 
locations (the reseller and the client) the one tagging  the VLAN and 
knowing that that VLAN info survives any other VLAN tagging that may happen 
on the network, or for that matter abilty for that data to route across 
paths that are not technically that VLAN assignment on the other layer.  I'm

not explaining this clearly, but that is the gist of it.

The end result is, if a provider's whole network supports Q in Q, it allows 
them to compete with other fiber Metro-E services.

Many believe that the design of the future for Metro deployments is to run 
MPLS at the edge devices, and then Q in Q VLAN inside the Metro Ethernet 
rings.  The key ideas here is abilty to creaetequivelent of virtual circuits

of Ethernet.

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


- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006

Re: [WISPA] looking for a device

[Tom DeReggi]

Jeff,

Yes that is yet another clever way to use Q in Q VLANs.

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


- Original Message - 
From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 3:06 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device



Lets say you are using vlans to not only segment traffic, but priortize
traffic as well. So a double tagged vlan, would give you the ability to
create  A vlan for segmentation and a VLAN within that vlan for
priortization, for additional segmentation as well.


I could be wrong though.

-

Jeff


On 6/9/06 7:50 AM, "Butch Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, John Scrivner wrote:

Can you or someone explain what double VLAN is? I have never heard of 
such a

thing. How can it be used to help us?


Not having read the entire thread, I'm assuming the term "double
VLAN" refers to the ability to create a VLAN (or many) that each
have VLANs inside them.  There are some places where this may be
needed, but it can get to be an extremely complex network.



--
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] looking for a device

[Tom DeReggi]

Is the AirMAtrix stuff you are specifying, are you referring to their MESH 
implemetation, or is that also different?


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


- Original Message - 
From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 3:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device



AirmatrixOS is not starOS and does offer vlans. Its its own web based OS.

You can order their stuff with starOS, but that's really only specific
custoemrs that order it anymore.

-

Jeff



On 6/8/06 10:03 PM, "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Airmatrix does VLAN but its uses StarOS, so it does VLAN the wrong way 
for

some one trying to sell to carriers.
If you sell to a carrier, they are going towant to be delivered a minimum 
of

1500 MTU. StarOS can't do that with VLAN.
However, if you didn;t need VLAN, Defacto does give EXCELLENT support. 
And
they ship ONTIME.  They aren't the cheapest, but they give the value you 
are

looking for.

Mikrotik is the preferred solution if you need to do VLAN. Wisp-Router 
also

offers support.
He's been in business now for atleast 10 years.  He may charge you by the
minute, but not at a rate any higher than Cisco would charge you.

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


- Original Message -
From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device


I could be missing the product you are suggesting, but the only dual 
radio

products I can find our base station products. I not looking for a base
station, I am looking for something client facing. Further, I see no
mention of VLAN support.

-Matt

jeffrey thomas wrote:


Airmatrix can do that.

www.defactowireless.com


On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:17:30 -0400, "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:


I am looking for a device with the following requirements:

* Can backhaul at >11Mbps operating in the 5.2Ghz band
* Can support VLANs
* Can assign a VLAN to one Ethernet port
* Powered by PoE (the standard is not required)
* Can act as a 2.4Ghz Wi-Fi access point assigned to a different VLAN
than the Ethernet port
* Everything in a single outdoor enclosure

Any ideas?

-Matt
--
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] looking for a device

[Tom DeReggi]

MPLS is atricky thing to define as MPLS has many components and features, 
depending on what features you want.
The biggest benefit of MPLS is it is a labeling system.  Each packet gets 
labeled with a class, and that class can include many variables 
(destination, source, packet type/port, customer name, a few others, etc). 
This label is integrated into the packet and follows it.  What you do with 
that label data depends. MPLS also includes components for distributing 
instruvtion on how to handle the various classes to its neighbors and 
routers across the network, as well how to have that labeling survive 
differnt network types (ATM, EThernet, Sonet). MPLS also has a VPN 
tunnelling feature, most advantageous because its abilty to survive 
dissimilar networks.


Many Believe Q in Q is a replacement for MPLS for local Metro Ethernet 
networks. VLANs are different in the sense that each packet may be tagged 
with a VLAN ID, but it also requires manual configuration of every switch 
that it crosses. So you physically map out the VLANs path via the Switch 
configuration.  Or atleast, at what point the VLAN Switch stripps the tag 
and retags it. But this is defined per ethernet port across your network.


One of the benefits of VLAN, is that it is widely supported by many many 
many in place devices. And there are just a few simple bits changed in the 
header of each packet at Layer 2. So it is VERY fast. ZERO degregation to 
delivery of packet thats getting tagged and untagged.  You can now buy 
Layer2 managed (VLAN) 100 mbps 24 pot switches for $160. (SMC).


MPLS is more involved because you now have to have more expensive routers 
and MPLS enabled devices. Its a big redesign to add MPLS. One of the reasons 
people only use it at the edge where it is most appropriate to use for large 
providers. A MPLS does nothing unless there is a router configured with a 
decission process on what to do with specific class packets. Its not just 
about the circuit ID. MPLS can forward it to a priority queue for example to 
control QOS.


But what one learns is that Ethernet is also starting to get QOS features 
added, without MPLS required, and there are many third party solutions like 
Diff Serv that can be integrated with VLAns to get addequate results for one 
network design to deliver QOS.


Mikrotik EoIP, not exactly sure.  I know it has significantly more over head 
on the packet than VLAN, wasting bandwidth. BUt I'd like to learn more about 
what EoIP is.


I think the most valuable technology of the three for WISPs depends on which 
ones get implemented into radios. We gain ease and power, when the features 
are added to the radios.  One of the things that gives MPLS a disadvantage 
is that there is not a good reliable open source version of it yet. VLAN is 
solid on OPEN source.  You want a technology that works on your routers and 
your radios both.  MPLS is more complex and needs more processing power and 
code than just VLAN so less likely to be added to radio firmwares.


I am no way dismissing MPLS, I'm just saying committing to MPLS may mean 
commiting to name brand routers and such.  MPLS is more powerful and ideal 
in many ways, but if you do not require all the features you can accomplish 
many of the things using alternate solutions that can be delivered today.


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


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

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device


Thanks to all for the double VLAN explanation. That makes perfect sense to 
me now.


Can anyone describe any functional and/or technical differences between 
VLANs and say MPLS or Mikrotik's EoIP? It sounds to me like all three are 
functional equivalents of each other. Please correct me if this is an 
incorrect assumption. I have Googled it so spare me the obvious. I want to 
hear your thoughts.

Thanks,
Scriv


Eric Rogers wrote:


It is also referred as 802.1q tagging... If it supports multiple layers,
you can have a customer VLAN tags within your network VLAN tags.  Just
need your equipment that takes off your tags before it gets to the
customer.

AT&T uses the Cisco 3750 switches to do it at the customer's premises.
Then the customer can have VLAN 10 at one location and VLAN 10 at
another, and it is completely transparent to the end user.

If that made sense.

Eric

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Charles Wu
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 11:34 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] looking for a device

Google (or Cisco) is your friend

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5207/products_feature_
guid
e09186a00801f0f4a.html

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
B

Re: [WISPA] looking for a device

[Tom DeReggi]

Q in Q, means that the provider does not need to remove his VLAN tags. The 
customer's VLAN tags can survive teh VLAN tags that the provider adds.
Customer has VLAN 10.  Provider tags VLAN20 on top, crosses network as 
VLAN20 data, Provider untags VLAN20 data, packet delivered to customer on 
VLAN10 (as customer tagged it originally).


An example of where its useful is... What if a customer has multiple 
locations in a Wide Area PtMP topology, and wants the data seperated? What 
if the Customer is another term for a wholesaler's reseller ISP? It gives 
the customer/reseller the abilty to segment with VLANs, without respect to 
what the provider may need to do with VLAN themselves.


This example is a little different than My last post, as noth VLAN taggers 
may have their VLAN IDs pass multiple network segments. But the poitn is, it 
doesn;t matter how dual VLANs are used, the flexibilty is there for a 
Provider to take advantage of however they feel fit.


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


- Original Message - 
From: "Eric Rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 12:51 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] looking for a device


It is also referred as 802.1q tagging... If it supports multiple layers,
you can have a customer VLAN tags within your network VLAN tags.  Just
need your equipment that takes off your tags before it gets to the
customer.

AT&T uses the Cisco 3750 switches to do it at the customer's premises.
Then the customer can have VLAN 10 at one location and VLAN 10 at
another, and it is completely transparent to the end user.

If that made sense.

Eric

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Charles Wu
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 11:34 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] looking for a device

Google (or Cisco) is your friend

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5207/products_feature_
guid
e09186a00801f0f4a.html

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 8:39 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device


Can you or someone explain what double VLAN is? I have never heard of
such a thing. How can it be used to help us?
Thanks,
Scriv



Yo may want to look at Alvarion. Alvarion does support VLAN. new
Firmware4 supports double VLAN also.
Alvarion used to have one model that was designed to have a second
integrated radio into it.
I can't remember if it was a 900/2.4 combo, or a 5.8/2.4 combo.


--
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] looking for a device

[Tom DeReggi]

To clarify

The term I referred to as "Double VLAN" is not the technically correct name 
(thats just what I call it), it is actually called "Q in Q" as stated by 
several in this thread.


One of the reasons this is valuable is for a wholesale network. It basically 
allows you to create a single VLAN end to end across your network for a 
subscriber or reseller, and still use VLAN for your local needs to operate 
your network.


I'll give an example of where I might use VLAN for my network need. I have a 
single fiber connection from the basement to the roof.  On the roof I have a 
VLAN switch and 6 sector radios. I have a router in the basement.  I could 
then seperate data between the different radio traffic by giving a unique 
VLAN to the Ethernet port that each sector radio connects to, and route 
between them in my basement router.


I'll give an example of where I'd use a VLAN end to end for a reseller. 
Reseller has a connection between me and them at one point on my network. 
The reseller might provide the backbone and IPs. The client routes the 
customers traffic to a specific VLAN when entering my network. I then have 
that VLAN configured across my network until reaches the end user's building 
router that terminates the VLAN.


Now what happens when the resellers customer (example 2) resides in the 
building (example 1)?  Normally two VLANs can't exist simultaneously as teh 
switch wouldn;t know which ID to tag data with.  Q in Q VLAN would allow one 
VLAN ID to reside in side of another VLAN.  Its the same concept as 
tunnelling, except for its not.


Now how does this apply to radios that support Q in Q? Depends. Use your 
imagination. The first problem is can the radio pass Q in Q VLAN data? 
Second can it tag it? Being able to tag VLAN data at the radio level can be 
extremely useful. First off it avoids having to configure a second device 
(VLAN switch) that complicates the automation of configurations.  Part of 
the Idea is that CLECs and Governement, are all high on Security, and they 
do not want to have to coordinate complex IP models between their systems 
and the wholesalers, instead they want to be able to send traffic LAyer2 and 
seperate traffic so one client does not have the abilty to see the other 
client's traffic.  Its sort of an Ethernet way of doing a Private Virtual 
Circuit.


The only problem with VLAN is you need to have every component of you 
network that passes VLANs to be able to pass large packets so Full MTU can 
be delivered to clients. This is one of the limits to Wifi and regular 
switches, is many Wifi devices and all non managed switches do not pass 
large packets.


Radio like Trango and Alvarion (with Q in Q support) have the abilty to pass 
large packets.


The other advantage of VLAN is that when used across a PtMP design and VLAN 
support at CPE, it allows doing remote banwdith management based on the 
customers circuit ID, and having a way to distinguish and differentiate the 
data.


Q in Q, gives the provider flexibilty on how and when they would like to use 
VLAN and in multiple ways simultaneously.


Its uncertain how Q in Q will be used for sure, as VLAN does add much 
complexity over say a basic bridged design.  Part of the benefit, is that 
redundancy is not always supported in an ideal way when VLAN is used. By 
allowing a VLAN end to end encapsulated in the other packets, it potentially 
could allow avoiding the pitfalls that limit redundancy by having the end 
locations (the reseller and the client) the one tagging  the VLAN and 
knowing that that VLAN info survives any other VLAN tagging that may happen 
on the network, or for that matter abilty for that data to route across 
paths that are not technically that VLAN assignment on the other layer.  I'm 
not explaining this clearly, but that is the gist of it.


The end result is, if a provider's whole network supports Q in Q, it allows 
them to compete with other fiber Metro-E services.


Many believe that the design of the future for Metro deployments is to run 
MPLS at the edge devices, and then Q in Q VLAN inside the Metro Ethernet 
rings.  The key ideas here is abilty to creaetequivelent of virtual circuits 
of Ethernet.


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


- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 11:33 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] looking for a device


I think Jon is asking about the "double VLAN" -- or a "q in q"
implementation
It's extremely useful for creating virtual bridged customer networks

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rick Harnish
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 9:10 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] looking for a device


Virtual LAN.  Imagine segregating segments of your network ac

Re: [WISPA] Fw: Orion 900 MHz OFDM 22 Mbps

[George Rogato]

Talk to Jamie S. I think he has a link up and running.

George

Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

Anyone know anything about these guys?
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless 
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam 
 

 
- Original Message -
*From:* Wireless Interactive Comm., Inc. 


*To:* List Member 
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:19 AM
*Subject:* Orion 900 MHz OFDM 22 Mbps





Home   Company Info 
  How to Buy 



	 
	





THE COMPETITION DOESN'T STAND A CHANCE

ORION 900 gives you the option to expand your wireless infrastructure, 
while at the same time providing your clients with up to 22 Mbps 
effective throughput. The competition offers an average of less than 3 
Mbps.


But what makes the ORION 900 truly a breakthrough radio, is that it is 
equipped with *built-in OFDM technology* -- something no other 900 Mhz 
radio on the market can claim -- so you can be sure to get signal where 
you wouldn't normally expect.


NOT JUST
A BACKHAUL SOLUTION

The diagram on the right shows just one of a few ways the ORION 900 can 
be used to enhance an infrastructure. It is shown as an Access Point 
that can connect to up to 4 unique MAC addresses, including another 
Access Point to even further extend the range of the wireless 
infrastructure.


To see other examples of how the ORION 900 can be incorporated in your 
network:







*
SPECIFICATIONS*

*900 Mhz
*BUILT-IN *OFDM*
*1W* OUTPUT
*22 Mbps* EFFECTIVE THROUGHPUT
UP TO *70 km* RANGE





 Site Map   Contact 
Info   Total Solutions 



	 
  	


 


Wireless Interactive Comm., Inc.
23112 Alcalde Drive, Suite C · Laguna Hills, California 92653  USA
Phone: +1 (949) 215-6277 · Fax: +1 (949) 215-6278

	 






Click here to change or remove your subscription 



Powered by Microsoft Small Business 






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: SPAM-LOW: [WISPA] Coverage Sterling, IL 61081

[Brian Rohrbacher]

Thanks Mike.

Mike Delp wrote:


Brian,

Give Owen Harrell a call.  You met him at MUM in Dallas.  He is in Sterling.

http://www.essex1.com/

Mike

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brian Rohrbacher
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization
Subject: SPAM-LOW: [WISPA] Coverage Sterling, IL 61081

20269 Luther Rd

I need service here, hit me offlist if you can help.

Brian Rohrbacher
Reliable Internet, LLC

Jeff Broadwick wrote:

 


Sorry for the cross post.

Does anyone have coverage to the east of Boone, North Carolina?

My customer is high up in the hills and AT&T wants $15K to bring him a T1.

Jeff

Jeffrey Broadwick, Sales Manager
ImageStream Internet Solutions
"Routers for the Real World!"
800-813-5123 x106  (USA)
+1 574-935-8484 x106   (Int'l)
+1 574-935-8488(Fax) 
www.imagestream.com

[EMAIL PROTECTED]


***
Register your services in our FREE WISP Locator
http://www.part-15.org/maps/WISPSearch.asp
***

The PART-15.ORG WISP Discussion List
To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe wisp
   



 


To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe wisp)
Archives: http://archives.part-15.org



   


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] Fw: Orion 900 MHz OFDM 22 Mbps

[Rick Smith]

Title: Wireless Interactive Newsletter



$732 for each unit - cpe or AP - and the AP can serve up to 
3 cpe's.   Supposedly, each CPE can also be an AP to 3 
more...


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 
982-2181Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 2:59 PMTo: 
wireless@wispa.orgSubject: [WISPA] Fw: Orion 900 MHz OFDM 22 
Mbps

Anyone know anything about these 
guys?
Marlon(509) 
982-2181   
Equipment sales(408) 907-6910 
(Vonage)    
Consulting services42846865 
(icq)    
And I run my own wisp!64.146.146.12 (net meeting)www.odessaoffice.com/wirelesswww.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
 
 
- Original Message - 
From: Wireless 
Interactive Comm., Inc. 
To: List Member 

Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:19 AM
Subject: Orion 900 MHz OFDM 22 Mbps


  
  
 

  


  

  
  

 Home  Company Info  How to Buy 

 
  


  
  


  


  
THE COMPETITION 
DOESN'T STAND A CHANCE 
ORION 900 gives 
you the option to expand your wireless infrastructure, while at the 
same time providing your clients with up to 22 Mbps effective 
throughput. The competition offers an average of less than 3 Mbps. 
But what makes the ORION 900 truly a breakthrough radio, is 
that it is equipped with built-in OFDM technology 
-- something no other 900 Mhz radio on the market can claim -- so 
you can be sure to get signal where you wouldn't normally expect. 

NOT JUSTA BACKHAUL 
SOLUTION
The diagram on the right shows just one of a few ways 
the ORION 900 can be used to enhance an infrastructure. It is shown 
as an Access Point that can connect to up to 4 unique MAC addresses, 
including another Access Point to even further extend the range of 
the wireless infrastructure. To see other examples of how 
the ORION 900 can be incorporated in your network:
 

   
  
SPECIFICATIONS
900 
MhzBUILT-IN 
OFDM1W OUTPUT22 
Mbps EFFECTIVE THROUGHPUTUP TO 70 km 
RANGE 


  


  
 

   Site 
  Map  Contact 
  Info  Total 
  Solutions

  
 
  
 

  
   
  Wireless Interactive Comm., Inc. 23112 Alcalde Drive, 
  Suite C · Laguna Hills, California 92653  USAPhone: +1 
  (949) 215-6277 · Fax: +1 (949) 215-6278
  



Click 
here to change or remove your subscriptionPowered by Microsoft Small 
Business
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Fw: Orion 900 MHz OFDM 22 Mbps

[Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181]

Title: Wireless Interactive Newsletter



Anyone know anything about these 
guys?
Marlon(509) 
982-2181   
Equipment sales(408) 907-6910 
(Vonage)    
Consulting services42846865 
(icq)    
And I run my own wisp!64.146.146.12 (net meeting)www.odessaoffice.com/wirelesswww.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
 
 
- Original Message - 
From: Wireless 
Interactive Comm., Inc. 
To: List Member 

Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:19 AM
Subject: Orion 900 MHz OFDM 22 Mbps


  
  
 

  


  

  
  

 
Home  Company 
Info  How to 
Buy 
 
  


  
  


  


  
THE COMPETITION 
DOESN'T STAND A CHANCE 
ORION 900 gives 
you the option to expand your wireless infrastructure, while at the 
same time providing your clients with up to 22 Mbps effective 
throughput. The competition offers an average of less than 3 Mbps. 
But what makes the ORION 900 truly a breakthrough radio, is 
that it is equipped with built-in OFDM technology 
-- something no other 900 Mhz radio on the market can claim -- so 
you can be sure to get signal where you wouldn't normally expect. 

NOT JUSTA BACKHAUL 
SOLUTION
The diagram on the right shows just one of a few ways 
the ORION 900 can be used to enhance an infrastructure. It is shown 
as an Access Point that can connect to up to 4 unique MAC addresses, 
including another Access Point to even further extend the range of 
the wireless infrastructure. To see other examples of how 
the ORION 900 can be incorporated in your network:
 
  
   
  
SPECIFICATIONS
900 
MhzBUILT-IN 
OFDM1W OUTPUT22 
Mbps EFFECTIVE THROUGHPUTUP TO 70 km 
RANGE 


  


  
 

   Site 
  Map  Contact 
  Info  Total 
  Solutions

  
 
  
 

  
   
  Wireless Interactive Comm., Inc. 23112 Alcalde Drive, 
  Suite C · Laguna Hills, California 92653  USAPhone: +1 
  (949) 215-6277 · Fax: +1 (949) 215-6278
  



Click 
here to change or remove your subscriptionPowered by Microsoft Small 
Business
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Spectrum sharing test proposal

[Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181]

Hi All,

Sorry for the cross post.  I'm hoping that the FCC committee people will see 
this sooner and work on it sooner/more this way


Here is the issue:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-77A1.pdf

Basically the FCC is asking if they should allow two 10MHz chunks of 
spectrum to be used as tests.  Exactly what the tests would be, what 
spectrum would be used, and what we should be looking for is all up in the 
air.


I've attached my 1st draft.  Please note the paragraph numbers when you 
respond to me so I can more easily work your thoughts into this.


thanks!
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam




Spectrum Sharing Test-bed 06-89.doc
Description: MS-Word document
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: SPAM-LOW: [WISPA] Coverage Sterling, IL 61081

[Mike Delp]

Brian,

Give Owen Harrell a call.  You met him at MUM in Dallas.  He is in Sterling.

http://www.essex1.com/

Mike

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brian Rohrbacher
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization
Subject: SPAM-LOW: [WISPA] Coverage Sterling, IL 61081

20269 Luther Rd

I need service here, hit me offlist if you can help.

Brian Rohrbacher
Reliable Internet, LLC

Jeff Broadwick wrote:

>Sorry for the cross post.
>
>Does anyone have coverage to the east of Boone, North Carolina?
>
>My customer is high up in the hills and AT&T wants $15K to bring him a T1.
>
>Jeff
>
>Jeffrey Broadwick, Sales Manager
>ImageStream Internet Solutions
>"Routers for the Real World!"
>800-813-5123 x106  (USA)
>+1 574-935-8484 x106   (Int'l)
>+1 574-935-8488(Fax) 
>www.imagestream.com
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>***
>Register your services in our FREE WISP Locator
>http://www.part-15.org/maps/WISPSearch.asp
>***
>
>The PART-15.ORG WISP Discussion List
>To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe wisp

>To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe wisp)
>Archives: http://archives.part-15.org
>
>  
>
-- 
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] ALBERTO

[Sam Tetherow]

I was thinking it was because you don't have open container laws and the 
bars never close


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless

Joe Laura wrote:


We have earlier happy hours down here in the south. I guess it helps us to
cope with all of this.
Superior Wireless
New Orleans,La.
www.superior1.com
- Original Message -
From: "JohnnyO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:52 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] ALBERTO


 


And the more I thank god you live in the NorthWest as well :)~

JohnnyO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:38 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] ALBERTO


the more this happens to you folks down there... the more I thank God I
live in the Northwest.




North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!


-
- Original Message -
From: "Mac Dearman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 8:32 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] ALBERTO


   


Looks like it's that time of year again!

Looks like we are starting early again this year and I really hate
that!!


http://www.weather.com/maps/news/atlstorm1/closeupsat_large_animated.h
tml


Mac Dearman


--
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/

[WISPA] Coverage Sterling, IL 61081

[Brian Rohrbacher]

20269 Luther Rd

I need service here, hit me offlist if you can help.

Brian Rohrbacher
Reliable Internet, LLC

Jeff Broadwick wrote:


Sorry for the cross post.

Does anyone have coverage to the east of Boone, North Carolina?

My customer is high up in the hills and AT&T wants $15K to bring him a T1.

Jeff

Jeffrey Broadwick, Sales Manager
ImageStream Internet Solutions
"Routers for the Real World!"
800-813-5123 x106  (USA)
+1 574-935-8484 x106   (Int'l)
+1 574-935-8488(Fax) 
www.imagestream.com

[EMAIL PROTECTED]


***
Register your services in our FREE WISP Locator
http://www.part-15.org/maps/WISPSearch.asp
***

The PART-15.ORG WISP Discussion List
To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe wisp 

To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe wisp)
Archives: http://archives.part-15.org

 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] ALBERTO

[Dustin Jurman]

We're seeing the storm bands in Tampa now.  Very wet.

Dustin 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Joe Laura
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 12:03 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] ALBERTO

We have earlier happy hours down here in the south. I guess it helps us to
cope with all of this.
Superior Wireless
New Orleans,La.
www.superior1.com
- Original Message -
From: "JohnnyO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:52 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] ALBERTO


> And the more I thank god you live in the NorthWest as well :)~
>
> JohnnyO
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:38 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] ALBERTO
>
>
> the more this happens to you folks down there... the more I thank God I
> live in the Northwest.
>
>
>
>
> North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
> personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
> sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
> Fast Internet, NO WIRES!
> 
> 
> -
> - Original Message -
> From: "Mac Dearman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 8:32 AM
> Subject: RE: [WISPA] ALBERTO
>
>
> >
> > Looks like it's that time of year again!
> >
> >  Looks like we are starting early again this year and I really hate
> > that!!
> >
> >
> > http://www.weather.com/maps/news/atlstorm1/closeupsat_large_animated.h
> > tml
> >
> >
> > Mac Dearman
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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/











-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] ALBERTO

[Joe Laura]

We have earlier happy hours down here in the south. I guess it helps us to
cope with all of this.
Superior Wireless
New Orleans,La.
www.superior1.com
- Original Message -
From: "JohnnyO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:52 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] ALBERTO


> And the more I thank god you live in the NorthWest as well :)~
>
> JohnnyO
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:38 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] ALBERTO
>
>
> the more this happens to you folks down there... the more I thank God I
> live in the Northwest.
>
>
>
>
> North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
> personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
> sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
> Fast Internet, NO WIRES!
> 
> 
> -
> - Original Message -
> From: "Mac Dearman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 8:32 AM
> Subject: RE: [WISPA] ALBERTO
>
>
> >
> > Looks like it's that time of year again!
> >
> >  Looks like we are starting early again this year and I really hate
> > that!!
> >
> >
> > http://www.weather.com/maps/news/atlstorm1/closeupsat_large_animated.h
> > tml
> >
> >
> > Mac Dearman
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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] ALBERTO

[JohnnyO]

And the more I thank god you live in the NorthWest as well :)~

JohnnyO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:38 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] ALBERTO


the more this happens to you folks down there... the more I thank God I
live in the Northwest.




North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!


-
- Original Message - 
From: "Mac Dearman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 8:32 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] ALBERTO


>
> Looks like it's that time of year again!
>
>  Looks like we are starting early again this year and I really hate 
> that!!
>
>
> http://www.weather.com/maps/news/atlstorm1/closeupsat_large_animated.h
> tml
>
>
> Mac Dearman
>
>
> --
> 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] ALBERTO

[Joe Laura]

Ya, Im not feeling to good about this either being so early in the season. I
started last week going back on jobs with non penetrating roof mounts and
guying them to the nearest anchor. Dont want them flying off the roof just
in case. I saw what Katrina did in the east and cinder blocks just did not
hold them down.
Superior Wireless
New Orleans,La.
www.superior1.com
- Original Message -
From: "Mac Dearman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:32 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] ALBERTO


>
> Looks like it's that time of year again!
>
>  Looks like we are starting early again this year and I really hate that!!
>
>
> http://www.weather.com/maps/news/atlstorm1/closeupsat_large_animated.html
>
>
> Mac Dearman
>
>
> --
> 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] ALBERTO

[Mark Koskenmaki]

the more this happens to you folks down there... the more I thank God I live
in the Northwest.




North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!

-
- Original Message - 
From: "Mac Dearman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 8:32 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] ALBERTO


>
> Looks like it's that time of year again!
>
>  Looks like we are starting early again this year and I really hate that!!
>
>
> http://www.weather.com/maps/news/atlstorm1/closeupsat_large_animated.html
>
>
> Mac Dearman
>
>
> -- 
> 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] ALBERTO

[Mac Dearman]

Looks like it's that time of year again!

 Looks like we are starting early again this year and I really hate that!!


http://www.weather.com/maps/news/atlstorm1/closeupsat_large_animated.html


Mac Dearman


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] MobilePro Ditches Sacramento

[Larry Yunker]

Sounds to me like the original "contract" wasn't a contract.  Otherwise, 
MobilePro would have grounds for breach and there doesn't appear to be any 
lawsuit pending.  I'm guessing that MobilePro was in the process of 
providing a "proof-of-concept" in order to secure a contract.


- Larry

- Original Message - 
From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MobilePro Ditches Sacramento



Interesting that the city changed the contract after the fact.
George


Peter R. wrote:

MobilePro Ditches Muni Mesh Project
http://www.telecomweb.com/tnd/17055.html

Wireless data specialist MobilePro this morning walked away from its 
contract to build a citywide Wi-Fi mesh in Sacramento, Calif. - only two 
months after the first test system went live - in what looks to be an 
acrimonious disagreement with city officials over the economics behind 
the deal.


MobilePro says the city blindsided it with new contract requirements that 
would require it to give away high-speed service for which it had planned 
to charge. In addition, the company says the city has withdrawn 
guarantees that the company would serve as "anchor tenant" for the 
network in order to provide the revenue to provide lower-speed service to 
economically disadvantaged residents.


MobilePro won the Sacramento contract last year, beating Motorola and 
AT&T (then known as SBC) for the business. The plan called for a mesh 
that initially covered Sacramento's downtown, Old Town and state-capital 
areas - an area of about 10 square miles - with the entire city to 
eventually be built out in phases.


MobilePro was to provide various free and fee-based services with secure 
high-speed data, voice and video throughout the planned coverage area. 
Subscriptions were to be sold on an annual, monthly, daily and hourly 
basis. Multiple Internet service providers (ISPs) were to be allowed to 
sell their services over the network. The entire project, MobilePro says, 
was to be based on its massive project in Arizona, which started in the 
city of Tempe and which has since grown to include neighboring 
municipalities to create a muni mesh sprawling across 187 miles of 
Arizona, the largest so far seen (TelecomWeb news break, March 16).


After what MobilePro termed "a lengthy permitting process," it finally 
launched its first pilot test in April in an area around the city's 
Caesar Chavez Plaza park. The pilot launch included a ribbon-cutting 
ceremony, with local politicians mouthing predictable platitudes about 
"cutting the wire" and the importance of the whole thing to the city and 
its "residents, students, visitors and businesses."


Meanwhile, things weren't going smoothly behind the scenes. MobilePro 
says the city sent it "a counter proposal requiring that the company 
establish a free high-speed wireless network supported almost exclusively 
by advertising revenue without the benefit of the city serving as an 
anchor tenant."


Such a demand directly conflicts with the original plan, according to a 
.PDF presentation on the Sacramento City Web site. In that presentation, 
the city outlined a project with free 56 Kb/s service, but residential 
service priced at $20 month for 1 Mb/s and $30 per month for 1.5 Mb/s; 
higher prices were detailed for business
service or service that includes VoIP. There also was a somewhat sneaky 
price plan of $4 for one hour of service - an emerging tactic in the 
industry that can zing a "single shot" user with what is really an 
astronomical fee for a few bits of data - but just $6 for an entire day 
or $10 for a week.


"Based on the company's successful Tempe, Ariz., model, MobilePro's 
original proposal provided for limited-area, limited-bandwidth, no-cost 
service but required higher- bandwidth broadband users to pay a monthly 
fee," the company says, adding it "also offered an alternative designed 
to close the 'digital divide' to the city's low-income quintile of 
residents, which included the city serving as an anchor tenant, but this 
proposal was likewise rejected by the city."


Thus, the company says, it has now rejected the city as a customer.

MobilePro President and COO Jerry Sullivan, in a prepared statement 
explaining the decision, said, "It is our understanding based on the 
final request of the City of Sacramento that the city would require 
MobilePro to provide free high-speed wireless Internet service to all 
residents and have the company rely primarily on
advertising revenues for its profits and returns on investment. Based 
upon MobilePro's research and experience as one of the leading Wi-Fi 
broadband wireless network service providers to municipalities in North 
America, MobilePro does not believe that an advertising-supported 
business case is financially sustainable. At this time, we view such a 
restrictive economic model as incompatible with our original long-term 
plans for both the res

Re: [WISPA] MobilePro Ditches Sacramento

[George Rogato]

Interesting that the city changed the contract after the fact.
George


Peter R. wrote:

MobilePro Ditches Muni Mesh Project
http://www.telecomweb.com/tnd/17055.html

Wireless data specialist MobilePro this morning walked away from its 
contract to build a citywide Wi-Fi mesh in Sacramento, Calif. - only two 
months after the first test system went live - in what looks to be an 
acrimonious disagreement with city officials over the economics behind 
the deal.


MobilePro says the city blindsided it with new contract requirements 
that would require it to give away high-speed service for which it had 
planned to charge. In addition, the company says the city has withdrawn 
guarantees that the company would serve as "anchor tenant" for the 
network in order to provide the revenue to provide lower-speed service 
to economically disadvantaged residents.


MobilePro won the Sacramento contract last year, beating Motorola and 
AT&T (then known as SBC) for the business. The plan called for a mesh 
that initially covered Sacramento's downtown, Old Town and state-capital 
areas - an area of about 10 square miles - with the entire city to 
eventually be built out in phases.


MobilePro was to provide various free and fee-based services with secure 
high-speed data, voice and video throughout the planned coverage area. 
Subscriptions were to be sold on an annual, monthly, daily and hourly 
basis. Multiple Internet service providers (ISPs) were to be allowed to 
sell their services over the network. The entire project, MobilePro 
says, was to be based on its massive project in Arizona, which started 
in the city of Tempe and which has since grown to include neighboring 
municipalities to create a muni mesh sprawling across 187 miles of 
Arizona, the largest so far seen (TelecomWeb news break, March 16).


After what MobilePro termed "a lengthy permitting process," it finally 
launched its first pilot test in April in an area around the city's 
Caesar Chavez Plaza park. The pilot launch included a ribbon-cutting 
ceremony, with local politicians mouthing predictable platitudes about 
"cutting the wire" and the importance of the whole thing to the city and 
its "residents, students, visitors and businesses."


Meanwhile, things weren't going smoothly behind the scenes. MobilePro 
says the city sent it "a counter proposal requiring that the company 
establish a free high-speed wireless network supported almost 
exclusively by advertising revenue without the benefit of the city 
serving as an anchor tenant."


Such a demand directly conflicts with the original plan, according to a 
.PDF presentation on the Sacramento City Web site. In that presentation, 
the city outlined a project with free 56 Kb/s service, but residential 
service priced at $20 month for 1 Mb/s and $30 per month for 1.5 Mb/s; 
higher prices were detailed for business
service or service that includes VoIP. There also was a somewhat sneaky 
price plan of $4 for one hour of service - an emerging tactic in the 
industry that can zing a "single shot" user with what is really an 
astronomical fee for a few bits of data - but just $6 for an entire day 
or $10 for a week.


"Based on the company's successful Tempe, Ariz., model, MobilePro's 
original proposal provided for limited-area, limited-bandwidth, no-cost 
service but required higher- bandwidth broadband users to pay a monthly 
fee," the company says, adding it "also offered an alternative designed 
to close the 'digital divide' to the city's low-income quintile of 
residents, which included the city serving as an anchor tenant, but this 
proposal was likewise rejected by the city."


Thus, the company says, it has now rejected the city as a customer.

MobilePro President and COO Jerry Sullivan, in a prepared statement 
explaining the decision, said, "It is our understanding based on the 
final request of the City of Sacramento that the city would require 
MobilePro to provide free high-speed wireless Internet service to all 
residents and have the company rely primarily on
advertising revenues for its profits and returns on investment. Based 
upon MobilePro's research and experience as one of the leading Wi-Fi 
broadband wireless network service providers to municipalities in North 
America, MobilePro does not believe that an advertising-supported 
business case is financially sustainable. At this time, we view such a 
restrictive economic model as incompatible with our original long-term 
plans for both the residents of Sacramento as well as the MobilePro 
stockholders."


As of press time, the city of Sacramento had not said what it now plans 
to do, if anything, to offer a municipal mesh network.


Regards,

Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect & Communicate
813.963.5884 http://4isps.com/newsletter.htm




--
George Rogato

Welcome to WISPA

www.wispa.org

http://signup.wispa.org/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

[WISPA] MobilePro Ditches Sacramento

[Peter R.]

MobilePro Ditches Muni Mesh Project
http://www.telecomweb.com/tnd/17055.html

Wireless data specialist MobilePro this morning walked away from its 
contract to build a citywide Wi-Fi mesh in Sacramento, Calif. - only two 
months after the first test system went live - in what looks to be an 
acrimonious disagreement with city officials over the economics behind 
the deal.


MobilePro says the city blindsided it with new contract requirements 
that would require it to give away high-speed service for which it had 
planned to charge. In addition, the company says the city has withdrawn 
guarantees that the company would serve as "anchor tenant" for the 
network in order to provide the revenue to provide lower-speed service 
to economically disadvantaged residents.


MobilePro won the Sacramento contract last year, beating Motorola and 
AT&T (then known as SBC) for the business. The plan called for a mesh 
that initially covered Sacramento's downtown, Old Town and state-capital 
areas - an area of about 10 square miles - with the entire city to 
eventually be built out in phases.


MobilePro was to provide various free and fee-based services with secure 
high-speed data, voice and video throughout the planned coverage area. 
Subscriptions were to be sold on an annual, monthly, daily and hourly 
basis. Multiple Internet service providers (ISPs) were to be allowed to 
sell their services over the network. The entire project, MobilePro 
says, was to be based on its massive project in Arizona, which started 
in the city of Tempe and which has since grown to include neighboring 
municipalities to create a muni mesh sprawling across 187 miles of 
Arizona, the largest so far seen (TelecomWeb news break, March 16).


After what MobilePro termed "a lengthy permitting process," it finally 
launched its first pilot test in April in an area around the city's 
Caesar Chavez Plaza park. The pilot launch included a ribbon-cutting 
ceremony, with local politicians mouthing predictable platitudes about 
"cutting the wire" and the importance of the whole thing to the city and 
its "residents, students, visitors and businesses."


Meanwhile, things weren't going smoothly behind the scenes. MobilePro 
says the city sent it "a counter proposal requiring that the company 
establish a free high-speed wireless network supported almost 
exclusively by advertising revenue without the benefit of the city 
serving as an anchor tenant."


Such a demand directly conflicts with the original plan, according to a 
.PDF presentation on the Sacramento City Web site. In that presentation, 
the city outlined a project with free 56 Kb/s service, but residential 
service priced at $20 month for 1 Mb/s and $30 per month for 1.5 Mb/s; 
higher prices were detailed for business
service or service that includes VoIP. There also was a somewhat sneaky 
price plan of $4 for one hour of service - an emerging tactic in the 
industry that can zing a "single shot" user with what is really an 
astronomical fee for a few bits of data - but just $6 for an entire day 
or $10 for a week.


"Based on the company's successful Tempe, Ariz., model, MobilePro's 
original proposal provided for limited-area, limited-bandwidth, no-cost 
service but required higher- bandwidth broadband users to pay a monthly 
fee," the company says, adding it "also offered an alternative designed 
to close the 'digital divide' to the city's low-income quintile of 
residents, which included the city serving as an anchor tenant, but this 
proposal was likewise rejected by the city."


Thus, the company says, it has now rejected the city as a customer.

MobilePro President and COO Jerry Sullivan, in a prepared statement 
explaining the decision, said, "It is our understanding based on the 
final request of the City of Sacramento that the city would require 
MobilePro to provide free high-speed wireless Internet service to all 
residents and have the company rely primarily on
advertising revenues for its profits and returns on investment. Based 
upon MobilePro's research and experience as one of the leading Wi-Fi 
broadband wireless network service providers to municipalities in North 
America, MobilePro does not believe that an advertising-supported 
business case is financially sustainable. At this time, we view such a 
restrictive economic model as incompatible with our original long-term 
plans for both the residents of Sacramento as well as the MobilePro 
stockholders."


As of press time, the city of Sacramento had not said what it now plans 
to do, if anything, to offer a municipal mesh network.


Regards,

Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect & Communicate
813.963.5884 
http://4isps.com/newsletter.htm



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Good news on the wimax unlicensed front

[Jeffrey Thomas]

Yup.




On 6/9/06 8:33 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Jeffrey Thomas = Jeff Booher
> 
> Jeffrey Thomas Booher actually
> 
> -Charles
> 
> ---
> CWLab
> Technology Architects
> http://www.cwlab.com
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of JohnnyO
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 11:58 PM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: RE: [WISPA] Good news on the wimax unlicensed front
> 
> 
> Jeffrey Thomas - DOH ! - For some reason I had Jeff Booher on the brain and
> made mistake of making this post ! ! ! ! Please - pretty please forgive me
> for mixing you up ?
> 
> /me holds head down and kicks rocks
> 
> JohnnyO
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of JohnnyO
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 11:32 PM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: RE: [WISPA] Good news on the wimax unlicensed front
> 
> 
> Jeff - how many other platforms have you tooted the horn on that have never
> produced the results you claimed ? Not trying to rain on your parade here,
> but every platform you've tooted ranting raves about, has never lived up to
> it's hype from what I have seen.
> 
> JohnnyO
> 
> Wanting to be a believer
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 11:22 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Good news on the wimax unlicensed front
> 
> 
> Simple. Since the CPE self provisions and aligns itself, the customer only
> need to know they need to install the device on their rooftop. And they also
> have indoor devices that work to maybe a KM or so from the tower but those
> Are as simple as a customer plugs in the ethernet plug and power and puts
> The CPE near a window. I honestly doubt anyone will use them, but they Are
> available. 
> 
> So really zero truck roll? Not really as most customers will want the wisp
> to install it- but the major benefit is that the CPE's will not require
> techs to carry a pc or anything other than cabling and tools to set up the
> roof mount.
> 
> -
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/8/06 8:04 PM, "Sam Tetherow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> Color me jaded, but how can you get a zero truck roll CPE in 5.4-5.9
>> unlicensed?
>> 
>> Sam Tetherow
>> Sandhills Wireless
>> 
>> jeffrey thomas wrote:
>> 
>>> Guys,
>>> 
>>> Just got out of training for the new AIRSPAN wimax product for 5.8.
>>> Unlike most other vendors, they are going to market with their
>>> 802.16-2004 5.4-5.9 solution and are shipping in JULY, and expect FCC
>>> certification for their 802.16-2004
>>> product for 4.9 Ghz as well in July! I am very excited about this as
> the
>>> 3 plus
>>> years of waiting for a viable, wimax product in a band that everyone
> can
>>> deploy
>>> in will be available.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So, while the equipment has not been ratified by the Wimax forum as
>>> of yet, ( and they havent even decided when they will be certifying
>>> vendors ) this product will be either complaint as is or will require
>>> a minor software upgrade
> for
>>> Wimax
>>> forum certified compatiability, assuming that the forum go with the
>>> 802.16-2004 spec as planned.
>>> 
>>> some notes on the product:
>>> 
>>> initial pricing expected to be very reasonably priced on the AP side
>>> of things,
>>>  
>>> 
 600.00 / cpe

 
>>> 
>>> 35 mb / sector real world throughput @ 64 QAM
>>> 
>>> full service flow integration for QOS
>>> 
>>> can be used in either 5 mhz channel size or 10 mhz channel
>>> 
>>> zero truck roll CPE ( users can easily install the equipment )
>>> 
>>> full blown FCAPS compliant NMS ( Fault monitoring configuration
>>> authentication provisioning security )
>>> 
>>> 
>>> color me excited :)
>>> 
>>> -
>>> 
>>> Jeff
>>>  
>>> 
> 


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] looking for a device

[Jeffrey Thomas]

Lets say you are using vlans to not only segment traffic, but priortize
traffic as well. So a double tagged vlan, would give you the ability to
create  A vlan for segmentation and a VLAN within that vlan for
priortization, for additional segmentation as well.


I could be wrong though.

-

Jeff


On 6/9/06 7:50 AM, "Butch Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, John Scrivner wrote:
> 
>> Can you or someone explain what double VLAN is? I have never heard of such a
>> thing. How can it be used to help us?
> 
> Not having read the entire thread, I'm assuming the term "double
> VLAN" refers to the ability to create a VLAN (or many) that each
> have VLANs inside them.  There are some places where this may be
> needed, but it can get to be an extremely complex network.


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Good news on the wimax unlicensed front

[Jeffrey Thomas]

Yup. Jeffrey thomas Booher.




On 6/9/06 4:36 AM, "Gino A. Villarini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Isn't Jeffrey Thomas = Jeff Boher ?
> 
> Gino A. Villarini
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of JohnnyO
> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 12:58 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: RE: [WISPA] Good news on the wimax unlicensed front
> 
> Jeffrey Thomas - DOH ! - For some reason I had Jeff Booher on the brain
> and made mistake of making this post ! ! ! ! Please - pretty please
> forgive me for mixing you up ?
> 
> /me holds head down and kicks rocks
> 
> JohnnyO
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of JohnnyO
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 11:32 PM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: RE: [WISPA] Good news on the wimax unlicensed front
> 
> 
> Jeff - how many other platforms have you tooted the horn on that have
> never produced the results you claimed ? Not trying to rain on your
> parade here, but every platform you've tooted ranting raves about, has
> never lived up to it's hype from what I have seen.
> 
> JohnnyO
> 
> Wanting to be a believer
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 11:22 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Good news on the wimax unlicensed front
> 
> 
> Simple. Since the CPE self provisions and aligns itself, the customer
> only need to know they need to install the device on their rooftop. And
> they also have indoor devices that work to maybe a KM or so from the
> tower but those Are as simple as a customer plugs in the ethernet plug
> and power and puts The CPE near a window. I honestly doubt anyone will
> use them, but they Are available.
> 
> So really zero truck roll? Not really as most customers will want the
> wisp to install it- but the major benefit is that the CPE's will not
> require techs to carry a pc or anything other than cabling and tools to
> set up the roof mount.
> 
> -
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/8/06 8:04 PM, "Sam Tetherow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> Color me jaded, but how can you get a zero truck roll CPE in 5.4-5.9
>> unlicensed?
>> 
>> Sam Tetherow
>> Sandhills Wireless
>> 
>> jeffrey thomas wrote:
>> 
>>> Guys,
>>> 
>>> Just got out of training for the new AIRSPAN wimax product for 5.8.
>>> Unlike most other vendors, they are going to market with their
>>> 802.16-2004 5.4-5.9
>>> solution and are shipping in JULY, and expect FCC certification for
>>> their 802.16-2004
>>> product for 4.9 Ghz as well in July! I am very excited about this as
> the
>>> 3 plus
>>> years of waiting for a viable, wimax product in a band that everyone
> can
>>> deploy
>>> in will be available.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So, while the equipment has not been ratified by the Wimax forum as
>>> of yet, ( and they havent even decided when they will be certifying
>>> vendors ) this product will
>>> be either complaint as is or will require a minor software upgrade
> for
>>> Wimax
>>> forum certified compatiability, assuming that the forum go with the
>>> 802.16-2004 
>>> spec as planned.
>>> 
>>> some notes on the product:
>>> 
>>> initial pricing expected to be very reasonably priced on the AP side
>>> of things,
>>>  
>>> 
 600.00 / cpe

 
>>> 
>>> 35 mb / sector real world throughput @ 64 QAM
>>> 
>>> full service flow integration for QOS
>>> 
>>> can be used in either 5 mhz channel size or 10 mhz channel
>>> 
>>> zero truck roll CPE ( users can easily install the equipment )
>>> 
>>> full blown FCAPS compliant NMS ( Fault monitoring configuration
>>> authentication provisioning security )
>>> 
>>> 
>>> color me excited :)
>>> 
>>> -
>>> 
>>> Jeff
>>>  
>>> 
> 


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] looking for a device

[Jeffrey Thomas]

AirmatrixOS is not starOS and does offer vlans. Its its own web based OS.

You can order their stuff with starOS, but that's really only specific
custoemrs that order it anymore.

-

Jeff



On 6/8/06 10:03 PM, "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Airmatrix does VLAN but its uses StarOS, so it does VLAN the wrong way for
> some one trying to sell to carriers.
> If you sell to a carrier, they are going towant to be delivered a minimum of
> 1500 MTU. StarOS can't do that with VLAN.
> However, if you didn;t need VLAN, Defacto does give EXCELLENT support.  And
> they ship ONTIME.  They aren't the cheapest, but they give the value you are
> looking for.
> 
> Mikrotik is the preferred solution if you need to do VLAN. Wisp-Router also
> offers support.
> He's been in business now for atleast 10 years.  He may charge you by the
> minute, but not at a rate any higher than Cisco would charge you.
> 
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 2:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device
> 
> 
>> I could be missing the product you are suggesting, but the only dual radio
>> products I can find our base station products. I not looking for a base
>> station, I am looking for something client facing. Further, I see no
>> mention of VLAN support.
>> 
>> -Matt
>> 
>> jeffrey thomas wrote:
>> 
>>> Airmatrix can do that.
>>> 
>>> www.defactowireless.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:17:30 -0400, "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> said:
>>> 
 I am looking for a device with the following requirements:
 
 * Can backhaul at >11Mbps operating in the 5.2Ghz band
 * Can support VLANs
 * Can assign a VLAN to one Ethernet port
 * Powered by PoE (the standard is not required)
 * Can act as a 2.4Ghz Wi-Fi access point assigned to a different VLAN
 than the Ethernet port
 * Everything in a single outdoor enclosure
 
 Any ideas?
 
 -Matt
 -- 
 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] Good news on the wimax unlicensed front

[Jeffrey Thomas]

Johnny-o,


I have made some mistakes in the past, however this is wimax- and for the
most part I have no reason to believe any of their claims are false or
Filled with marketing goobly gook.

Aperto always did and has performed well beyond it's claims. I admit fault
In intially thinking that the product from vivato would be interesting,
Of course as many of you know now, they never had a real phased array
antenna and with the noise floor where it is in 2.4, doesn't make much
Of a difference. Airspan I have had some experience with ( their wipll
platform ) and everything that they claim about it is actually true,
So I would naturally assume that this is the same case. Additionally,
If they didn't know what they were doing they wouldn't have deployments
Like the one they have in japan that has over 25,000 CPE's, ( using the same
product ) or the one They have in mexico that has 750,000 clients.

-

Jeff



On 6/8/06 9:31 PM, "JohnnyO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Jeff - how many other platforms have you tooted the horn on that have
> never produced the results you claimed ? Not trying to rain on your
> parade here, but every platform you've tooted ranting raves about, has
> never lived up to it's hype from what I have seen.
> 
> JohnnyO
> 
> Wanting to be a believer
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 11:22 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Good news on the wimax unlicensed front
> 
> 
> Simple. Since the CPE self provisions and aligns itself, the customer
> only need to know they need to install the device on their rooftop. And
> they also have indoor devices that work to maybe a KM or so from the
> tower but those Are as simple as a customer plugs in the ethernet plug
> and power and puts The CPE near a window. I honestly doubt anyone will
> use them, but they Are available.
> 
> So really zero truck roll? Not really as most customers will want the
> wisp to install it- but the major benefit is that the CPE's will not
> require techs to carry a pc or anything other than cabling and tools to
> set up the roof mount.
> 
> -
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/8/06 8:04 PM, "Sam Tetherow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> Color me jaded, but how can you get a zero truck roll CPE in 5.4-5.9
>> unlicensed?
>> 
>> Sam Tetherow
>> Sandhills Wireless
>> 
>> jeffrey thomas wrote:
>> 
>>> Guys,
>>> 
>>> Just got out of training for the new AIRSPAN wimax product for 5.8.
>>> Unlike most other vendors, they are going to market with their
>>> 802.16-2004 5.4-5.9
>>> solution and are shipping in JULY, and expect FCC certification for
>>> their 802.16-2004
>>> product for 4.9 Ghz as well in July! I am very excited about this as
> the
>>> 3 plus
>>> years of waiting for a viable, wimax product in a band that everyone
> can
>>> deploy
>>> in will be available.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So, while the equipment has not been ratified by the Wimax forum as
>>> of yet, ( and they havent even decided when they will be certifying
>>> vendors ) this product will
>>> be either complaint as is or will require a minor software upgrade
> for
>>> Wimax 
>>> forum certified compatiability, assuming that the forum go with the
>>> 802.16-2004 
>>> spec as planned.
>>> 
>>> some notes on the product:
>>> 
>>> initial pricing expected to be very reasonably priced on the AP side
>>> of things,
>>>  
>>> 
 600.00 / cpe

 
>>> 
>>> 35 mb / sector real world throughput @ 64 QAM
>>> 
>>> full service flow integration for QOS
>>> 
>>> can be used in either 5 mhz channel size or 10 mhz channel
>>> 
>>> zero truck roll CPE ( users can easily install the equipment )
>>> 
>>> full blown FCAPS compliant NMS ( Fault monitoring configuration
>>> authentication provisioning security )
>>> 
>>> 
>>> color me excited :)
>>> 
>>> -
>>> 
>>> Jeff
>>>  
>>> 
> 


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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