Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Program/Script for Web Server?
Interesting. I've never really tested the high end. I installed it for my customers as a tool when they call with speed complaints. My plans range from 128K to 2M and it seems fairly accurate for me (within 10-20K) whenever I have run it. Running on a debian gnu/linux server and apache2. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless David E. Smith wrote: KyWiFi LLC wrote: The speed test below is way off for me. It is no where close to being accurate. Is there a problem with it or is the server where it's hosted overloaded right now? I installed a copy of it in my office, and got woefully inaccurate numbers too. Being just one router and a couple switches away, I should be able to get more than 5Mbps :) I actually tested the same connection with iperf and nuttcp and got about 50Mbps, off by a factor of ten. (shrug) David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Program/Script for Web Server?
KyWiFi LLC wrote: The speed test below is way off for me. It is no where close to being accurate. Is there a problem with it or is the server where it's hosted overloaded right now? I installed a copy of it in my office, and got woefully inaccurate numbers too. Being just one router and a couple switches away, I should be able to get more than 5Mbps :) I actually tested the same connection with iperf and nuttcp and got about 50Mbps, off by a factor of ten. (shrug) David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Program/Script for Web Server?
The speed test below is way off for me. It is no where close to being accurate. Is there a problem with it or is the server where it's hosted overloaded right now? Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky "Your Hometown Broadband Provider" http://www.KyWiFi.com Call Us Today: 859.274.4033 === $29.99 DSL High Speed Internet $14.99 Home Phone Service $19.99 All Digital Satellite TV - No Phone Line Required for DSL - FREE Activation & Equipment - Affordable Upfront Pricing - Locally Owned & Operated - We Also Service Most Rural Areas === - Original Message - From: "Sam Tetherow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12:54 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Program/Script for Web Server? A week late but I didn't see anyone mention: http://www.brandonchecketts.com/open-source-speedtest/ It has both up and download speed test. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Bo Hamilton wrote: > Hello Everyone! Im looking for a Bandwidth Progrom for my Web Server. > Can > someone on the list help me? > > Thanks in advance! > > Bo Hamilton > > NCOWireless.com -- 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] SF Earthlink Study
The biggest problem I have with thesedeals are... What are the ramifications if a company doesn;t deliver? They may promise a CPE with every deal, but what if the investors chage their mind because they aren;t getting the pay back to jsutify giving the CPE after significant trials? What value get puts on the damages that the Provider is responsible for, when not delivering what they promised? Losse the contract? So what, who'd care if it wasnlt working? Or Who would let the contract terminate, if forcing them out would result in some customers losing existing service, and a long time before a new option installed in town? The bottom line is, once some subs are up on the network, the provider has control, because the public (that can be served) interests must be looked after alsol Thats the disadvantage of Monopoly agreements. They are uninforceable. And the only thing it solves, is removes enforcabilty, in the provider's favor. I just talked to a relative of mine, who's city is looking to do a small town Muni Wifi project. They may give exclusivity to the equipment on the poles installed by the provider, and non-interference clauses, but they are not planning on giving exclusivity to the poles themselves. They are leaving options for a second provider to get involved if they want. If the first provider does a good job, no one would deploy in duplicate, it would be pointless for the small town. But that possibilty keeps the first provider honest and trying their best. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Kimo Crossman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ; "'Ralph'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 2:23 AM Subject: [WISPA] SF Earthlink Study (thank you for your insightful input Ralph) Message: 12 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:40:53 -0500 From: "Ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Numbering my responses to Kimo's questions: 1. Right now, a handful of cities (I think they are the 3 Metro-Fi cities in Silicon Valley, plus Mtn View) are getting 1Mb. This is totally dependent of the depth of the pockets of Metro-Fi's backers and on the advertising revenues. Ever play with a puppy in a pet store? They are so cute, you just have to take it home. If the business model doesn't pay out i.e.: They don't get enough paying subscribers or they don't get the revenue from the ads, then you will see it change. Not saying that was Metricom's demise, but they had few users and any Metro network takes gobs of money to build out. I've seen it first hand... With this model and with the equipment that will be used in SF. It ain't free and it ain't cheap! (kimo) I agree with you- I think Metro-Fi's model still has yet to be proved a success. On the other hand ATT is doing Portland Oregon with them so there may be more developing on this. 2. So Seattle will have it in 10 years. By then, there will be something bigger and better. Will the SF residents have to wait 10 years too? Not something I'd be willing to do- especially when I was faced with a proposal from someone who will do it for free and assume all the risk. What has SF got to lose? (kimo) The EarthLink deal doesn't compare favorably with what other cities are getting - Why should SF settle? Sf already has more hotspots than any other city in the nation. It is not hard to find a free hotspot currently. SF shouldn't lock itself in to what is effectively a 16 year monopoly deal with tech that is already dated. 3. Milpitas, CA. No tall residential buildings (but some are under construction. A 24-30 ft high access point with the relatively low gain of the Tropos antennas will have a good amount of upward radiation. It isn't that much better of an antenna than a dipole would be. It certainly has little, if any, directional abilities. It may not go up into a 30 story hotel or apartment house, but how many residence in SF are in those? That can easily be the 5 or 10 % allowed not to be covered. Most of my friends in SF live in 2-4 story abodes. According to the web page, the CPE is given with a paid connection anyway, so there's no-one not getting one except for the people taking the freebie. Even if I chose to live in a place that required use of a CPE, it is no different than buying an XM receiver to listen to XM, or buying a transistor radio or boom box to listen to free radio. (kimo) Hmm ok, well there are more and more tall residential buildings in SF and isn't anything over 2 stories already above the 40 ft coverage that EarthLink is agreeing too? Are you suggesting (I hope it's true) that a CPE solves all indoor and above 40 ft issues? I thought it was of limited value? -- 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.or
Re: [WISPA] calea
Not to seem dense, but aren't all of those various forms of voice protocols? Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Frank Muto wrote: http://www.askcalea.net/standards.html See website for more details Service Type Technology Voice Wireline / Wireless: TIA TR45 TIA/EIA J-STD-025-A TIA TR45 TIA/EIA J-STD-025-B Wireline VOIP: (LAES) for Voice over Packet Technologies in Wireline Telecommunication Networks PTSC ATIS-1000678 (T1.678v2) Cable VOIP Release 1.1: PacketCable Electronic Surveillance Specification PKT-SP-ESP-I03-40113 Cable VOIP Release 1.5: PacketCable Electronic Surveillance Specification PKT-SP-ESP1.5-I01-050128 Cable VOIP Release 2.0: PacketCable Electronic Surveillance Delivery Function Collection Function Interface Specification PKT-SP-ES-DCI-I01 PacketCable Electronic Surveillance Intra-Network Specification PKT-SP-ES-INF-I02 Voice over Packet: Electronic Surveillance Needs for Carrier Grade Voice over Packet Service CGVoP CDMA2000 VOIP: LAES for CDMA2000 VoIP TIA-1066 UMTS VOIP: WTSC P.0008 (In Ballot) Push-To-Talk UMTS / GPRS: T1P1 T1.724 Rel. 5 - UMTS ESMR: EWA Electronic Surveillance for ESMR Dispatch Ver. 1.0 CDMA2000 POC: TIA-1072 Paging PAGING: Paging, Advanced Messaging, CALEA - Ver. 1.3 Data Access UMTS / GPRS: T1P1 T1.724 Rel. 5 - UMTS CDMA 2000: TIA TR45 LAES J-STD-025-B, plus Addendum 1 Wireline: PTSC T1.IAS (In Ballot) Frank Muto Co-founder - Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us - Original Message - From: "Rick Harnish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 8:24 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] calea That was my understanding as well Scott. I can't seem to remember what formats they said were ok to use, do you? Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband & Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Program/Script for Web Server?
A week late but I didn't see anyone mention: http://www.brandonchecketts.com/open-source-speedtest/ It has both up and download speed test. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Bo Hamilton wrote: Hello Everyone! Im looking for a Bandwidth Progrom for my Web Server. Can someone on the list help me? Thanks in advance! Bo Hamilton NCOWireless.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] calea
Marlon, I'm glad that last comment looked like part of your signature file! I will hopefully know more tomorrow. Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband & Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA -Original Message- From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 11:01 AM To: Mario Pommier Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WISPA] calea Hi Mario, You just have to be crazy enough to volunteer :-) sign up here: http://signup.wispa.org/wispa-newacct.html Rick's opinions don't count for anything! roflol Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: "Mario Pommier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 12:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] calea > marlon, >what's involved in heading the committee? >where do I pay the dues? >i guess we'd need to talk to rick about his option. > > Mario > > Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I've finally found the folks at the FBI that we need to talk to. >> We'll have a lot more info soon. We've also got Kris and Larry >> working on documentation for us. >> >> First, CALEA is NOT a data retention requirement. Do do NOT have to >> routinely store any customer data in order to be compliant. >> >> CALEA is, basically, an electronic wire tap. WE have to be able to >> surreptitiously intercept a data stream from our customer, copy that >> to a device, then VPN that data to law enforcement. And ONLY that >> data. (Unless you are also a voip provider, then you'll have to send >> the voice stream differently.) >> >> You MAY be subpoenaed separately for any log files or other records >> that you routinely keep in relation to your business. But that's NOT >> a part of CALEA. >> >> The FBI was very clear. THEY aren't to be given the ability to snoop >> on your whole network as a part of CALEA. YOU have to provide the >> customer data stream, after you've broken it out from the rest of your >> data flow. >> >> There are already standards in place on what and how to do this for >> the DSL industry, cable is working on a standard. The conversation >> was more technical than I can recall word for word, but it sounds like >> it would be a very very good idea for us to either adopt an existing >> CALEA standard or develop one for our industry. Anyone care to head >> up a committee on the topic??? >> >> I'll have more to you guys as I get it. Most of the really good stuff >> will likely be available only to WISPA members though. Certainly the >> write-up that's being done by the legal beagles will only be available >> to WISPA membership. >> >> laters, >> Marlon >> (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales >> (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services >> 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> www.odessaoffice.com/wireless >> www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam >> >> >> > > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Most Common Questions for Tech Support Line ?
Rick Smith wrote: > If I were to build a "script" for my tech support phone answering, > and share it with you all as an "FAQ", what do you think the most > common questions are, and how are they answered. Keep in mind, > that I'm attempting to write a script, so to speak, for an operator > to pick up the phone and cluefully help someone through wireless > or "hotspot" problems in hotels... While I like the answers submitted thus far, I'm going to dare to make a semi-serious contribution or two. Assuming it's a typical hotspot environment, you'll probably have a lot of questions about email. If someone pops open Outlook or Thunderbird or whatever, they'll probably be able to read their email, but they likely won't be able to send email out. Your script will need to explain why the hotel won't let their guests talk to any random SMTP server on the Internet. (And you may want an optional paragraph for folks whose companies are semi-clueful and have SMTP AUTH or something like that set up.) Bonus points if you have an SMTP proxy of some sort, and if it can somehow handle the aforementioned SMTP AUTH (I'm not sure if that'd even be possible, but what the heck). A related stanza for people using MS Exchange may be useful too - at least some versions of Exchange use NetBIOS ports for talking to their server, which are exactly the same ports used by 9 out of 10 leading Windows viruses, and thus are probably blocked, wholesale, on your network. Then all the standard stuff about "flip the little switch on the side of your notebook to turn on the wireless card" and "try rebooting, that fixes everything about half the time." David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Re: SF Earthlink Study
Jonathan, Thanks for clearing that up for me. I saw the snapshots of traffic going across the certain tropos units and it was killing me to figure out what they were for. Hope everything is ok with you. Have not talked in a while. Joe Superior Wireless New Orleans,La. www.superior1.com - Original Message - From: "Jonathan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:03 AM Subject: [WISPA] Re: SF Earthlink Study In response to: "IMO the only thing that will make earthlink really have a chance of being profitable in the wi-fi arena is if they are able to sell city government and/or business services. I think New Orleans is using the earthlink service for the city camera project but I am not sure if they are charging a fee for this or not. I could come up with some really neat ideas to sell service off of the earthlink network but the coverage just is not there IMO. They are offering a indoor CPE with a service commitment but in many cases a indoor CPE is not going to get clients a reliable connection. Testing from my van in some areas I get a great signal and then it just drops to nothing. I do see alot of tropos units with no ssid's and I am not sure whats up with that. Maybe thats for the cameras." New Orleans, currently, is not using the Earthlink service for thier camera projects. They do use Tropos nodes, though, but only where needed for access to the cameras. The Tropos nodes you see with no SSID were part of the free network the city put up post Katrina. Earthlink has since deployed in those areas where the network used to operate, so the City is in the process of removing those nodes from their current locations. -- 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] Re: SF Earthlink Study
In response to: "IMO the only thing that will make earthlink really have a chance of being profitable in the wi-fi arena is if they are able to sell city government and/or business services. I think New Orleans is using the earthlink service for the city camera project but I am not sure if they are charging a fee for this or not. I could come up with some really neat ideas to sell service off of the earthlink network but the coverage just is not there IMO. They are offering a indoor CPE with a service commitment but in many cases a indoor CPE is not going to get clients a reliable connection. Testing from my van in some areas I get a great signal and then it just drops to nothing. I do see alot of tropos units with no ssid's and I am not sure whats up with that. Maybe thats for the cameras." New Orleans, currently, is not using the Earthlink service for thier camera projects. They do use Tropos nodes, though, but only where needed for access to the cameras. The Tropos nodes you see with no SSID were part of the free network the city put up post Katrina. Earthlink has since deployed in those areas where the network used to operate, so the City is in the process of removing those nodes from their current locations. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Interested in learning
Kimo, You were much more diplomatic about this thought than I was. I do tend to agree with you. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Kimo Crossman wrote: Hi I was hoping to learn from Marlon - not be slapped - if he isn't going to provide useful feedback maybe it is better he not jump into the discussion that he does not have time to dig into. Thanks Kimo -- Message: 2 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:31:09 -0800 From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [WISPA] San Francisco Legislative Analyst reportreleased onEarthLink Google WiFi deal - says Start Over To: "WISPA General List" Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response First page, first paragraph. No I've not read the whole thing yet. I've got family and customers to take care of first. I'm also working on the next wisp fcc meetings. Working on getting a meeting with the broadband group at the ftc and talking to the fbi about calea (more on that in another email). I dig into the things I can't change when there's time between the things that I can. laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] SF Earthlink Study
Oddly enough, the SF deal includes no city services in the contract but says the city will consider EarthLink as a sole bid for future wireless services. Some wonder if this has all been arranged to allow the city to say now that they are currently putting no money into the deal and then to quickly put some money in after the deal is approved. As you say, almost all muni wifi deals have the government as the Anchor Tenant. -Original Message- From: Joe Laura [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 2007 January 17 00:01 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] SF Earthlink Study IMO the only thing that will make earthlink really have a chance of being profitable in the wi-fi arena is if they are able to sell city government and/or business services. I think New Orleans is using the earthlink service for the city camera project but I am not sure if they are charging a fee for this or not. I could come up with some really neat ideas to sell service off of the earthlink network but the coverage just is not there IMO. They are offering a indoor CPE with a service commitment but in many cases a indoor CPE is not going to get clients a reliable connection. Testing from my van in some areas I get a great signal and then it just drops to nothing. I do see alot of tropos units with no ssid's and I am not sure whats up with that. Maybe thats for the cameras. Superior Wireless New Orleans,La. www.superior1.com - Original Message - From: "Kimo Crossman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ; "'Ralph'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 1:23 AM Subject: [WISPA] SF Earthlink Study (thank you for your insightful input Ralph) Message: 12 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:40:53 -0500 From: "Ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Numbering my responses to Kimo's questions: 1. Right now, a handful of cities (I think they are the 3 Metro-Fi cities in Silicon Valley, plus Mtn View) are getting 1Mb. This is totally dependent of the depth of the pockets of Metro-Fi's backers and on the advertising revenues. Ever play with a puppy in a pet store? They are so cute, you just have to take it home. If the business model doesn't pay out i.e.: They don't get enough paying subscribers or they don't get the revenue from the ads, then you will see it change. Not saying that was Metricom's demise, but they had few users and any Metro network takes gobs of money to build out. I've seen it first hand... With this model and with the equipment that will be used in SF. It ain't free and it ain't cheap! (kimo) I agree with you- I think Metro-Fi's model still has yet to be proved a success. On the other hand ATT is doing Portland Oregon with them so there may be more developing on this. 2. So Seattle will have it in 10 years. By then, there will be something bigger and better. Will the SF residents have to wait 10 years too? Not something I'd be willing to do- especially when I was faced with a proposal from someone who will do it for free and assume all the risk. What has SF got to lose? (kimo) The EarthLink deal doesn't compare favorably with what other cities are getting - Why should SF settle? Sf already has more hotspots than any other city in the nation. It is not hard to find a free hotspot currently. SF shouldn't lock itself in to what is effectively a 16 year monopoly deal with tech that is already dated. 3. Milpitas, CA. No tall residential buildings (but some are under construction. A 24-30 ft high access point with the relatively low gain of the Tropos antennas will have a good amount of upward radiation. It isn't that much better of an antenna than a dipole would be. It certainly has little, if any, directional abilities. It may not go up into a 30 story hotel or apartment house, but how many residence in SF are in those? That can easily be the 5 or 10 % allowed not to be covered. Most of my friends in SF live in 2-4 story abodes. According to the web page, the CPE is given with a paid connection anyway, so there's no-one not getting one except for the people taking the freebie. Even if I chose to live in a place that required use of a CPE, it is no different than buying an XM receiver to listen to XM, or buying a transistor radio or boom box to listen to free radio. (kimo) Hmm ok, well there are more and more tall residential buildings in SF and isn't anything over 2 stories already above the 40 ft coverage that EarthLink is agreeing too? Are you suggesting (I hope it's true) that a CPE solves all indoor and above 40 ft issues? I thought it was of limited value? -- 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] SF Earthlink Study
IMO the only thing that will make earthlink really have a chance of being profitable in the wi-fi arena is if they are able to sell city government and/or business services. I think New Orleans is using the earthlink service for the city camera project but I am not sure if they are charging a fee for this or not. I could come up with some really neat ideas to sell service off of the earthlink network but the coverage just is not there IMO. They are offering a indoor CPE with a service commitment but in many cases a indoor CPE is not going to get clients a reliable connection. Testing from my van in some areas I get a great signal and then it just drops to nothing. I do see alot of tropos units with no ssid's and I am not sure whats up with that. Maybe thats for the cameras. Superior Wireless New Orleans,La. www.superior1.com - Original Message - From: "Kimo Crossman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ; "'Ralph'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 1:23 AM Subject: [WISPA] SF Earthlink Study (thank you for your insightful input Ralph) Message: 12 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:40:53 -0500 From: "Ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Numbering my responses to Kimo's questions: 1. Right now, a handful of cities (I think they are the 3 Metro-Fi cities in Silicon Valley, plus Mtn View) are getting 1Mb. This is totally dependent of the depth of the pockets of Metro-Fi's backers and on the advertising revenues. Ever play with a puppy in a pet store? They are so cute, you just have to take it home. If the business model doesn't pay out i.e.: They don't get enough paying subscribers or they don't get the revenue from the ads, then you will see it change. Not saying that was Metricom's demise, but they had few users and any Metro network takes gobs of money to build out. I've seen it first hand... With this model and with the equipment that will be used in SF. It ain't free and it ain't cheap! (kimo) I agree with you- I think Metro-Fi's model still has yet to be proved a success. On the other hand ATT is doing Portland Oregon with them so there may be more developing on this. 2. So Seattle will have it in 10 years. By then, there will be something bigger and better. Will the SF residents have to wait 10 years too? Not something I'd be willing to do- especially when I was faced with a proposal from someone who will do it for free and assume all the risk. What has SF got to lose? (kimo) The EarthLink deal doesn't compare favorably with what other cities are getting - Why should SF settle? Sf already has more hotspots than any other city in the nation. It is not hard to find a free hotspot currently. SF shouldn't lock itself in to what is effectively a 16 year monopoly deal with tech that is already dated. 3. Milpitas, CA. No tall residential buildings (but some are under construction. A 24-30 ft high access point with the relatively low gain of the Tropos antennas will have a good amount of upward radiation. It isn't that much better of an antenna than a dipole would be. It certainly has little, if any, directional abilities. It may not go up into a 30 story hotel or apartment house, but how many residence in SF are in those? That can easily be the 5 or 10 % allowed not to be covered. Most of my friends in SF live in 2-4 story abodes. According to the web page, the CPE is given with a paid connection anyway, so there's no-one not getting one except for the people taking the freebie. Even if I chose to live in a place that required use of a CPE, it is no different than buying an XM receiver to listen to XM, or buying a transistor radio or boom box to listen to free radio. (kimo) Hmm ok, well there are more and more tall residential buildings in SF and isn't anything over 2 stories already above the 40 ft coverage that EarthLink is agreeing too? Are you suggesting (I hope it's true) that a CPE solves all indoor and above 40 ft issues? I thought it was of limited value? -- 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/
