Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
I won't comment on the first parts. ;-) The rest is completely true, other than Brian is talking about 24 million households can't get it in the first place vs. 24 million households that don't want it that you (and others on the list) took it to mean. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "MDK" Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:58 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ > Is that directly off the pages of the Democrat National Committee "Blast > Fax" talking points of the day? > > Shame on you, Jack. > > There's easily 24 million households THAT DO NOT WANT OR WILL NOT PAY FOR > broadband. > > I have some areas where I cover 100% of the households, nobody else does, > and yet, I can only get 60 percent of them to subscribe. The rest? > Too > expensive (even 25.50/mo is 'too much') or "we don't even have a computer" > is still something I hear semi regularly. > > I don't think my demographics are specifically average... but they're not > THAT far off the norm. > > In the last 2 years I've lost 5 customers to cable and dsl. 1 to another > provider (was glad to see them go), but that's less than the number who > have moved or died. I think we've seen nearly the limits of cable and > dsl > expansion where I am. And they've covered a good 75% of the population, > even as rural as we are.The WSJ article is dead on right, from what I > can tell. My growth is now the niche areas that aren't high on the cable > or dsl deployment priority, yet I'm seeing the "want" for broadband to be > under 80%, even in affluent areas. > > Since our install costs are now as low as "free", depending on location, > we're seeing signficant "not heavy user" adoption. > > Now, the growth of actual data moved... The percentage increase every > month is near or at double digits. > > > -- > From: "Jack Unger" > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ > >> Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more >> likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American >> households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece >> (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos. >> >> jack >> >> >> Jeff Broadwick wrote: >>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht >>> ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop >>> >>> >>> >>> * REVIEW & OUTLOOK >>> * JANUARY 20, 2010 >>> >>> A 'National Broadband Plan' >>> One more solution in search of a problem. >>> >>> >>> The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it >>> will >>> miss a February deadline for delivering a "national broadband plan" and >>> requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly >>> everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet. >>> >>> As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a >>> plan >>> to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's >>> a >>> worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false >>> presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that >>> broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of >>> Internet connections. >>> >>> Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 >>> million >>> from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy >>> Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is >>> 94%, >>> and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A >>> typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless >>> bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a >>> 500-fold >>> increase since 2000. >>> >>> Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in >>> 2008 >>> alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment. >>> Nominal >>> capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5 >>> trillion. >>> >>> Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this >>> private >>> progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD >>> estimates, >>> the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. >>> But >>> because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has >>> relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A >>> better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not >>> per >>> person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th. >>> >>> Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband >>> penetration >>> is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy >>> Institute >>> notes that "at the current rates of broadband adoptio
Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
Jack wrote and published a book... Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --- Albert Einstein On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:54 AM, Jack Unger wrote: > I refuse to feed the troll. I refuse to feed the troll. I refuse to feed > the troll. I refuse to feed the troll. I refuse to feed the troll. > > MDK wrote: > > Is that directly off the pages of the Democrat National Committee "Blast > Fax" talking points of the day? > > Shame on you, Jack. > > There's easily 24 million households THAT DO NOT WANT OR WILL NOT PAY FOR > broadband. > > I have some areas where I cover 100% of the households, nobody else does, > and yet, I can only get 60 percent of them to subscribe. The rest?Too > expensive (even 25.50/mo is 'too much') or "we don't even have a computer" > is still something I hear semi regularly. > > I don't think my demographics are specifically average... but they're not > THAT far off the norm. > > In the last 2 years I've lost 5 customers to cable and dsl. 1 to another > provider (was glad to see them go), but that's less than the number who > have moved or died. I think we've seen nearly the limits of cable and dsl > expansion where I am. And they've covered a good 75% of the population, > even as rural as we are.The WSJ article is dead on right, from what I > can tell. My growth is now the niche areas that aren't high on the cable > or dsl deployment priority, yet I'm seeing the "want" for broadband to be > under 80%, even in affluent areas. > > Since our install costs are now as low as "free", depending on location, > we're seeing signficant "not heavy user" adoption. > > Now, the growth of actual data moved... The percentage increase every > month is near or at double digits. > > > -- > From: "Jack Unger" > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ > > > > Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more > likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American > households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece > (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos. > > jack > > > Jeff Broadwick wrote: > > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht > ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop > > > > * REVIEW & OUTLOOK > * JANUARY 20, 2010 > > A 'National Broadband Plan' > One more solution in search of a problem. > > > The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will > miss a February deadline for delivering a "national broadband plan" and > requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly > everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet. > > As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a > plan > to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a > worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false > presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that > broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of > Internet connections. > > Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 > million > from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy > Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is > 94%, > and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A > typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless > bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a > 500-fold > increase since 2000. > > Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in > 2008 > alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment. > Nominal > capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5 > trillion. > > Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this > private > progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD > estimates, > the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But > because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has > relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A > better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not per > person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th. > > Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband > penetration > is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy Institute > notes that "at the current rates of broadband adoption the U.S. is behind > the leaders only by a number of months, and all wealthy OECD countries > will > reach a saturation point within the next few years." > > Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject th
Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
I refuse to feed the troll. I refuse to feed the troll. I refuse to feed the troll. I refuse to feed the troll. I refuse to feed the troll. MDK wrote: Is that directly off the pages of the Democrat National Committee "Blast Fax" talking points of the day? Shame on you, Jack. There's easily 24 million households THAT DO NOT WANT OR WILL NOT PAY FOR broadband. I have some areas where I cover 100% of the households, nobody else does, and yet, I can only get 60 percent of them to subscribe. The rest?Too expensive (even 25.50/mo is 'too much') or "we don't even have a computer" is still something I hear semi regularly. I don't think my demographics are specifically average... but they're not THAT far off the norm. In the last 2 years I've lost 5 customers to cable and dsl. 1 to another provider (was glad to see them go), but that's less than the number who have moved or died. I think we've seen nearly the limits of cable and dsl expansion where I am. And they've covered a good 75% of the population, even as rural as we are.The WSJ article is dead on right, from what I can tell. My growth is now the niche areas that aren't high on the cable or dsl deployment priority, yet I'm seeing the "want" for broadband to be under 80%, even in affluent areas. Since our install costs are now as low as "free", depending on location, we're seeing signficant "not heavy user" adoption. Now, the growth of actual data moved... The percentage increase every month is near or at double digits. -- From: "Jack Unger" Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos. jack Jeff Broadwick wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop * REVIEW & OUTLOOK * JANUARY 20, 2010 A 'National Broadband Plan' One more solution in search of a problem. The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will miss a February deadline for delivering a "national broadband plan" and requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet. As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a plan to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of Internet connections. Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 million from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is 94%, and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a 500-fold increase since 2000. Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in 2008 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment. Nominal capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5 trillion. Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this private progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD estimates, the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not per person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th. Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband penetration is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy Institute notes that "at the current rates of broadband adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of months, and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within the next few years." Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market failure thesis. "In any industry subject to significant technological change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products and services," said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to the FCC. "In the case of broadband services, it's clear that the market is shifting generally in the direction of faster speeds and addition
Re: [WISPA] Network Gigabit Switch Recommendations
The 1810G-24 can. The 1800-24 & 8 can't. Nick Olsen Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x106 From: "John Thomas" Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:20 AM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Gigabit Switch Recommendations Try to find out what mac address is on which port-you can't do that with the HP 1800's, you need something higher up the food chain. John Scott Vander Dussen wrote: > Nick- > Thanks for the info - I'm looking at specifications between the HP ProCurve 1810G Switch Series http://bit.ly/5g2F0B and HP ProCurve 2810 Switch Series http://bit.ly/5Nqvwc > > It seems much of the capabilities are the same, with the 2810 offering a bit more horsepower at about 2x the cost - plus the 2810 series offers a 48 port version. Any experience with the 2810 series? Thanks in advance. > > `S > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Nick Olsen > Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 8:55 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Gigabit Switch Recommendations > > I've always been a fan of the HP switches, The 1800-24G is nice, But the new one I'm liking is the 1810G-24 > 24 Port Gig, Port mirroring...ect.. > > Nick Olsen > Brevard Wireless > (321) 205-1100 x106 > > > > > From: "Tom DeReggi" > Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 11:27 AM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Gigabit Switch Recommendations > > Yes, you are correct, several typical models, such as 100mb L2 and AL2 > (These are Both full featured VLAN switches with different OSs which are > similar to their equivellent gig version) only support mirroring in TX or RX > per port, not simultaneous. For example To Do Calea monitoring it would be > necessary to mirror two ports. For example, TX on the customer port, and RX > on the backbone port, and sort through it. > > But I did not check the highest end SMC yet. I'll plug one in, and check for > you, shortly.. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > - Original Message - > From: "Scott Vander Dussen" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 8:08 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Gigabit Switch Recommendations > > >> Thx Tom- really only need rx/tx port mirroring - can your smc switch >> do that? I have some smcs that can only do rx or tx but not at the >> same time. Thx for info. >> >> Thanks, >> 'S >> >> --- >> Sent mobile (and probably one handed while driving!) >> >> On Jan 12, 2010, at 12:28 AM, "Tom DeReggi" >> wrote: >> >> >>> Depends on your Requrements for the switch, that is not enough info. >>> >>> SMC has a fully featured switch that we love, the 24 cat5 Gig port >>> (w/ 4 >>> fiber module ports) model is about $750. >>> It does everything.(complete VLAN, Multiple spanning tree, good >>> monitoring >>> stats, SNMP, Command prompt also, can Label Ports with names, etc) >>> >>> SMC has a 24 port Gig model for about $500 that does a lot, but you >>> cant >>> label ports with names. >>> >>> Then if all you want is WebSmart switch, now you are in the $300 >>> range. And >>> there are lots of manufacturer options for webSmart type. >>> >>> NetGear has a good one for about $550, might even have OSPF, but >>> lacks a few >>> VLAN features, but allows ports to have names.. >>> >>> Tom DeReggi >>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >>> >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Scott Vander Dussen" >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:24 AM >>> Subject: [WISPA] Network Gigabit Switch Recommendations >>> >>> >>> Need to upgrade several 10/100 switches to 10/100/100; I'm looking for recommendations on good reliable equipment. Will need 24 and 48 port units, Rx/Tx port mirroring is a must! Thanks in advance, Scott --- --- --- --- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ --- --- --- --- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2116 - Release Date: 5/15/2009 6:16 AM >>> >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>>
Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
I knew Mark would chime in :) Per my last post, my experience is the same. The broadband debate reminds me a lot of the healthcare debate. Everybody wants it but nobody wants to pay for it. I'm still waiting for my free electicity, natural gas, water, sewer, television, etc, etc. The bottom line is that ISP's (or any private business for that matter) are in business to provide a service while making a few bucks (hopefully). The only thing the government can and will do is become an obstacle in that process. But we digress to a topic heavily discussed several weeks ago and before that. -RickG On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:58 PM, MDK wrote: > Is that directly off the pages of the Democrat National Committee "Blast > Fax" talking points of the day? > > Shame on you, Jack. > > There's easily 24 million households THAT DO NOT WANT OR WILL NOT PAY FOR > broadband. > > I have some areas where I cover 100% of the households, nobody else does, > and yet, I can only get 60 percent of them to subscribe. The rest?Too > expensive (even 25.50/mo is 'too much') or "we don't even have a computer" > is still something I hear semi regularly. > > I don't think my demographics are specifically average... but they're not > THAT far off the norm. > > In the last 2 years I've lost 5 customers to cable and dsl. 1 to another > provider (was glad to see them go), but that's less than the number who > have moved or died. I think we've seen nearly the limits of cable and dsl > expansion where I am. And they've covered a good 75% of the population, > even as rural as we are.The WSJ article is dead on right, from what I > can tell. My growth is now the niche areas that aren't high on the cable > or dsl deployment priority, yet I'm seeing the "want" for broadband to be > under 80%, even in affluent areas. > > Since our install costs are now as low as "free", depending on location, > we're seeing signficant "not heavy user" adoption. > > Now, the growth of actual data moved... The percentage increase every > month is near or at double digits. > > > -- > From: "Jack Unger" > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ > > > Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more > > likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American > > households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece > > (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos. > > > > jack > > > > > > Jeff Broadwick wrote: > >> > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht > >> ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop > >> > >> > >> > >> * REVIEW & OUTLOOK > >> * JANUARY 20, 2010 > >> > >> A 'National Broadband Plan' > >> One more solution in search of a problem. > >> > >> > >> The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it > will > >> miss a February deadline for delivering a "national broadband plan" and > >> requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly > >> everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet. > >> > >> As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a > >> plan > >> to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's > a > >> worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false > >> presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that > >> broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of > >> Internet connections. > >> > >> Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 > >> million > >> from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy > >> Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is > >> 94%, > >> and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A > >> typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless > >> bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a > >> 500-fold > >> increase since 2000. > >> > >> Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in > >> 2008 > >> alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment. > >> Nominal > >> capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5 > >> trillion. > >> > >> Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this > >> private > >> progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD > >> estimates, > >> the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. > But > >> because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has > >> relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A > >> better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not > per > >> person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th. > >> > >> Such comparisons will soon be m
Re: [WISPA] Network Gigabit Switch Recommendations
Try to find out what mac address is on which port-you can't do that with the HP 1800's, you need something higher up the food chain. John Scott Vander Dussen wrote: > Nick- > Thanks for the info - I'm looking at specifications between the HP ProCurve > 1810G Switch Series http://bit.ly/5g2F0B and HP ProCurve 2810 Switch Series > http://bit.ly/5Nqvwc > > It seems much of the capabilities are the same, with the 2810 offering a bit > more horsepower at about 2x the cost - plus the 2810 series offers a 48 port > version. Any experience with the 2810 series? Thanks in advance. > > `S > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Nick Olsen > Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 8:55 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Gigabit Switch Recommendations > > I've always been a fan of the HP switches, The 1800-24G is nice, But the new > one I'm liking is the 1810G-24 > 24 Port Gig, Port mirroring...ect.. > > Nick Olsen > Brevard Wireless > (321) 205-1100 x106 > > > > > From: "Tom DeReggi" > Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 11:27 AM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Gigabit Switch Recommendations > > Yes, you are correct, several typical models, such as 100mb L2 and AL2 > (These are Both full featured VLAN switches with different OSs which are > similar to their equivellent gig version) only support mirroring in TX or RX > per port, not simultaneous. For example To Do Calea monitoring it would be > necessary to mirror two ports. For example, TX on the customer port, and RX > on the backbone port, and sort through it. > > But I did not check the highest end SMC yet. I'll plug one in, and check for > you, shortly.. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > - Original Message - > From: "Scott Vander Dussen" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 8:08 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Gigabit Switch Recommendations > > >> Thx Tom- really only need rx/tx port mirroring - can your smc switch >> do that? I have some smcs that can only do rx or tx but not at the >> same time. Thx for info. >> >> Thanks, >> 'S >> >> --- >> Sent mobile (and probably one handed while driving!) >> >> On Jan 12, 2010, at 12:28 AM, "Tom DeReggi" >> wrote: >> >> >>> Depends on your Requrements for the switch, that is not enough info. >>> >>> SMC has a fully featured switch that we love, the 24 cat5 Gig port >>> (w/ 4 >>> fiber module ports) model is about $750. >>> It does everything.(complete VLAN, Multiple spanning tree, good >>> monitoring >>> stats, SNMP, Command prompt also, can Label Ports with names, etc) >>> >>> SMC has a 24 port Gig model for about $500 that does a lot, but you >>> cant >>> label ports with names. >>> >>> Then if all you want is WebSmart switch, now you are in the $300 >>> range. And >>> there are lots of manufacturer options for webSmart type. >>> >>> NetGear has a good one for about $550, might even have OSPF, but >>> lacks a few >>> VLAN features, but allows ports to have names.. >>> >>> Tom DeReggi >>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >>> >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Scott Vander Dussen" >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:24 AM >>> Subject: [WISPA] Network Gigabit Switch Recommendations >>> >>> >>> Need to upgrade several 10/100 switches to 10/100/100; I'm looking for recommendations on good reliable equipment. Will need 24 and 48 port units, Rx/Tx port mirroring is a must! Thanks in advance, Scott --- --- --- --- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ --- --- --- --- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2116 - Release Date: 5/15/2009 6:16 AM >>> >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> >>> >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> >>> >>> >> -
Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
Marlon, You are not reading the report. The census block consumer reported data is NOT FROM THE 477 DATA. This is information compiled from various large marketing companies around the US and gets tabulated every 60 days. The version I used was from the first two quarters of 2009 so it is very fresh. If you know WHERE the broadband activity is reported and you know how many active households there are in each census block, you also know the number of households that DON'T have access to broadband by simply adding up the household counts in the blocks without reported broadband. The household counts are established by the number of active addresses in the block for the same period and are not projections from the 2000 census numbers. We are NOT talking about the number of households that don't subscribe where broadband is available when speaking about the number of households without ACCESS to broadband. One only has to total the households in the census blocks that do not report any broadband activity to figure out the number not served. The reason there has never been a report like this before is because there has never been a company that compiled the marketing data at the census block level prior to July. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: Marlon K. Schafer [mailto:o...@odessaoffice.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:46 PM To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ Heya Brian, That's the take I had on this. That the number of households services was based on the 477 data. I didn't see any other data sets that would give an indication of the number of actually services households. If the study is based only on the consumers reported via the 477 it's likely to be quite inaccurate. People in government etc. are often quite amazed at the number of customers that I service out here. And I'm just one of a great many companies offering services in the area. I'm trying to get a handle on what additional sources of fact based information are out there. It's important to know what the real number is and yours seems very high to me. I don't think it'll be helpful in the long term if we have a number that gets blown out of the water in the upcoming census. marlon - Original Message - From: "Brian Webster" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:00 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ > Marlon, > Read this take rate brief I wrote with one of the data companies I work > with. It will take you about 10 minutes. It goes in to specific detail of > how the study was conducted and the sources of the data. It was written > for > the 10 minute managers of the world. The key to being able to come up with > the numbers was having the data at the census block level in the first > place. Prior to July of this year there were no sources that I am aware > of. > The only information drawn from the form 477 is the total number of > residential subscribers by state. The number of households without access > to > broadband has no relationship to the 477 data. That should be spelled out > in > the report. > > > > Thank You, > Brian Webster > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on > Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:32 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ > > > OK, as I understand that the report is based upon the 477 data? > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: Jack Unger > To: WISPA General List > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:41 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ > > > Marlon, > > See the attached report. Go to Table 2 on page 11. Look at the last cell > in the lower, right-hand corner. > > jack > > > Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > I still don't buy that number in the first place. I wish I knew more > about > how Brian came up with it. > > What % of rural households does that work out to be? > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "Jack Unger" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ > > > Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more > likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American > households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece > (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos. > > jack > > > Jeff Broadwick wrote: > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870365210457465250160837655 > 2.ht > ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop > > > >* REVIEW & OUTLOOK >* JANUARY 20, 2010 > > A 'National Broadband Plan' > One more solution in search of a problem. > > > The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will > miss a February deadline for delivering a "national broadband plan" and > requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing dea
Re: [WISPA] stolen solar site
How about a splash page that says "Congrats - you have won lifetime free internet - just enter your name & address here!" - Original Message - From: "RickG" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 7:34 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] stolen solar site > Ya, I figured you thought of that. Now, if you could redirect their web > session and phish them to enter in their contact info! > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Marlon K. Schafer > wrote: > >> That's what we're doing. grin Great minds and all. >> >> It did come online for a bit yesterday. Not long enough to do any good >> though. >> >> Maybe they'll try a bit harder :-). >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "RickG" >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 8:28 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] stolen solar site >> >> >> > Just a thought but I'd authorize the CPE to work so they use it. Then >> > you >> > can track them down! >> > -RickG >> > >> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Marlon K. Schafer >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Heya Tracy, >> >> >> >> Turns out this was a misunderstanding. The equipment that got stolen >> was >> >> the CPE at the office in TOWN, not the solar site out in the sticks. >> >> >> >> Not sure how those wires got crossed, but the solar sit is still >> >> working >> >> well. >> >> >> >> We did see the cpe come online for a few seconds since we figured this >> >> out >> >> though. It'll be interesting to see if we can figure out how to track >> >> down >> >> who stole it :-). >> >> marlon >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> >> From: "Tracy Tippett" >> >> To: >> >> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 12:07 PM >> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] stolen solar site >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Hi Marlon, >> >> > >> >> > Sorry about your gear - give me a ring >> >> > >> >> > Tracy Tippett >> >> > 866-582-7287 >> >> > >> >> > --Original Mail-- >> >> > From: "Marlon K. Schafer" >> >> > To: "WISPA General List" >> >> > Sent: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:50:47 -0800 >> >> > Subject: [WISPA] stolen solar site >> >> > >> >> > Deep sigh. >> >> > >> >> > I put up my first solar site 3 weeks ago. Today it's gone. $3,000 >> >> > in >> >> > hardware, poof. >> >> > >> >> > What do you guys do to secure them? >> >> > >> >> > I hope the jerks fell of the cliff's and got hurt! >> >> > >> >> > It's not like the whole world even know the gear was out there. >> Pretty >> >> > remote location, not at all publicized. >> >> > >> >> > Merry Christmas and a Happy New year eh? >> >> > >> >> > ug >> >> > marlon >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> >> > http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> > >> >> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> >> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> > >> >> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> >> > http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> > >> >> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> >> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> > >> >> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> > http://signup.wispa.org/ >> > >> >> > >> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> > >> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> > >> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > > > -
Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
Is that directly off the pages of the Democrat National Committee "Blast Fax" talking points of the day? Shame on you, Jack. There's easily 24 million households THAT DO NOT WANT OR WILL NOT PAY FOR broadband. I have some areas where I cover 100% of the households, nobody else does, and yet, I can only get 60 percent of them to subscribe. The rest?Too expensive (even 25.50/mo is 'too much') or "we don't even have a computer" is still something I hear semi regularly. I don't think my demographics are specifically average... but they're not THAT far off the norm. In the last 2 years I've lost 5 customers to cable and dsl. 1 to another provider (was glad to see them go), but that's less than the number who have moved or died. I think we've seen nearly the limits of cable and dsl expansion where I am. And they've covered a good 75% of the population, even as rural as we are.The WSJ article is dead on right, from what I can tell. My growth is now the niche areas that aren't high on the cable or dsl deployment priority, yet I'm seeing the "want" for broadband to be under 80%, even in affluent areas. Since our install costs are now as low as "free", depending on location, we're seeing signficant "not heavy user" adoption. Now, the growth of actual data moved... The percentage increase every month is near or at double digits. -- From: "Jack Unger" Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ > Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more > likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American > households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece > (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos. > > jack > > > Jeff Broadwick wrote: >> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht >> ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop >> >> >> >> * REVIEW & OUTLOOK >> * JANUARY 20, 2010 >> >> A 'National Broadband Plan' >> One more solution in search of a problem. >> >> >> The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will >> miss a February deadline for delivering a "national broadband plan" and >> requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly >> everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet. >> >> As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a >> plan >> to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a >> worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false >> presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that >> broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of >> Internet connections. >> >> Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 >> million >> from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy >> Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is >> 94%, >> and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A >> typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless >> bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a >> 500-fold >> increase since 2000. >> >> Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in >> 2008 >> alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment. >> Nominal >> capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5 >> trillion. >> >> Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this >> private >> progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD >> estimates, >> the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But >> because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has >> relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A >> better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not per >> person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th. >> >> Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband >> penetration >> is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy Institute >> notes that "at the current rates of broadband adoption the U.S. is behind >> the leaders only by a number of months, and all wealthy OECD countries >> will >> reach a saturation point within the next few years." >> >> Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market >> failure thesis. "In any industry subject to significant technological >> change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be >> forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products and >> services," said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to the FCC. >> "In >> the case of broadband services, it's clear that the market is shifting >> generally in the direction of fa
Re: [WISPA] Wireless Roaming
The latest version is MT gear. marlon - Original Message - From: "RickG" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 7:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wireless Roaming >I knew you did Marlon - I've seen your pics. I dont recall which equipment > you used? > -RickG > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Marlon K. Schafer > wrote: > >> Hi Rick, >> >> We've got a system up and running for a small town. It's working well >> last >> I knew. >> >> Not totally seamless roaming, but pretty close. It'll also work in other >> communities where people have open routers. >> >> Butch, your email is ringing! >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "RickG" >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 11:03 PM >> Subject: [WISPA] Wireless Roaming >> >> >> >A local city has contacted me to assist them with wireless for their >> > emergency vehicles - yes, roaming. The city proper is about 1-2 miles >> wide >> > and 7 mile long. They have 3 water tanks (125') and a tower at city >> > hall >> > (80'). Hills not bad but lots of trees. They are currently spending >> > $100k/year for Sprint cards. >> > Any suggestions for equipment should I look at? >> > -RickG >> > >> > >> > >> >> > WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> > http://signup.wispa.org/ >> > >> >> > >> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> > >> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> > >> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
Heya Brian, That's the take I had on this. That the number of households services was based on the 477 data. I didn't see any other data sets that would give an indication of the number of actually services households. If the study is based only on the consumers reported via the 477 it's likely to be quite inaccurate. People in government etc. are often quite amazed at the number of customers that I service out here. And I'm just one of a great many companies offering services in the area. I'm trying to get a handle on what additional sources of fact based information are out there. It's important to know what the real number is and yours seems very high to me. I don't think it'll be helpful in the long term if we have a number that gets blown out of the water in the upcoming census. marlon - Original Message - From: "Brian Webster" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:00 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ > Marlon, > Read this take rate brief I wrote with one of the data companies I work > with. It will take you about 10 minutes. It goes in to specific detail of > how the study was conducted and the sources of the data. It was written > for > the 10 minute managers of the world. The key to being able to come up with > the numbers was having the data at the census block level in the first > place. Prior to July of this year there were no sources that I am aware > of. > The only information drawn from the form 477 is the total number of > residential subscribers by state. The number of households without access > to > broadband has no relationship to the 477 data. That should be spelled out > in > the report. > > > > Thank You, > Brian Webster > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on > Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:32 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ > > > OK, as I understand that the report is based upon the 477 data? > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: Jack Unger > To: WISPA General List > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:41 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ > > > Marlon, > > See the attached report. Go to Table 2 on page 11. Look at the last cell > in the lower, right-hand corner. > > jack > > > Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > I still don't buy that number in the first place. I wish I knew more > about > how Brian came up with it. > > What % of rural households does that work out to be? > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "Jack Unger" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ > > > Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more > likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American > households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece > (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos. > > jack > > > Jeff Broadwick wrote: > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870365210457465250160837655 > 2.ht > ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop > > > >* REVIEW & OUTLOOK >* JANUARY 20, 2010 > > A 'National Broadband Plan' > One more solution in search of a problem. > > > The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will > miss a February deadline for delivering a "national broadband plan" and > requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly > everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet. > > As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a > plan > to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a > worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false > presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that > broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of > Internet connections. > > Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 > million > from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy > Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is > 94%, > and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A > typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless > bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a > 500-fold > increase since 2000. > > Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in > 2008 > alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment. > Nominal > capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5 > trillion. > > Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this > private > progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD > estimates, > the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But > because household sizes differ from
Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
Brian, nice job btw. -RickG On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Brian Webster < bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com> wrote: > Marlon, >Read this take rate brief I wrote with one of the data companies I > work > with. It will take you about 10 minutes. It goes in to specific detail of > how the study was conducted and the sources of the data. It was written for > the 10 minute managers of the world. The key to being able to come up with > the numbers was having the data at the census block level in the first > place. Prior to July of this year there were no sources that I am aware of. > The only information drawn from the form 477 is the total number of > residential subscribers by state. The number of households without access > to > broadband has no relationship to the 477 data. That should be spelled out > in > the report. > > > > Thank You, > Brian Webster > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on > Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:32 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ > > > OK, as I understand that the report is based upon the 477 data? > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: Jack Unger > To: WISPA General List > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:41 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ > > > Marlon, > > See the attached report. Go to Table 2 on page 11. Look at the last cell > in the lower, right-hand corner. > > jack > > > Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > I still don't buy that number in the first place. I wish I knew more about > how Brian came up with it. > > What % of rural households does that work out to be? > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "Jack Unger" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ > > > Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more > likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American > households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece > (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos. > > jack > > > Jeff Broadwick wrote: > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870365210457465250160837655 > 2.ht > ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop > > > >* REVIEW & OUTLOOK >* JANUARY 20, 2010 > > A 'National Broadband Plan' > One more solution in search of a problem. > > > The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will > miss a February deadline for delivering a "national broadband plan" and > requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly > everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet. > > As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a > plan > to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a > worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false > presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that > broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of > Internet connections. > > Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 > million > from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy > Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is > 94%, > and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A > typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless > bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a > 500-fold > increase since 2000. > > Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in > 2008 > alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment. > Nominal > capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5 > trillion. > > Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this > private > progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD > estimates, > the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But > because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has > relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A > better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not per > person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th. > > Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband > penetration > is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy Institute > notes that "at the current rates of broadband adoption the U.S. is behind > the leaders only by a number of months, and all wealthy OECD countries > will > reach a saturation point within the next few years." > > Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market > failure thesis. "In any industry subject to significant technological > change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be > forward-looking rather
Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
Is that before or after the book? On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > http://www.wispa.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/Jack.JPG > > :-p > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > > From: Jack Unger > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:16 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ > > > Sure coverage is "increasing" but that's just a distraction. The issue is > that the current level of home broadband Internet access is way too low and > millions of people are deprived of Internet access at home (or in a > home-based business). The article is nothing more than a thinly-veiled hit > piece for the telcos. Without saying so, the article argues for keeping > millions living in the past, without having the benefits of the Internet to > improve their lives. This is as clear as the nose on my face. (No, a picture > is NOT attached) :) > > jack > > > > Jeff Broadwick wrote: > I don't think it ignores that, it is suggesting that the private sector is > in the process of closing that gap, without government "investment" and/or > intervention. > > I don't believe that it is arguable that coverage is increasing...that's > the > net effect of the whole WISP industry. > > > Regards, > > Jeff > > > Jeff Broadwick > ImageStream > 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) > +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:28 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ > > Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more > likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American > households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece > (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos. > > jack > > > Jeff Broadwick wrote: > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376 > 552.ht > ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop > > > >* REVIEW & OUTLOOK >* JANUARY 20, 2010 > > A 'National Broadband Plan' > One more solution in search of a problem. > > > The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it > will miss a February deadline for delivering a "national broadband > plan" and requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing > deadlines, nearly everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed >Internet. > As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a > plan to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. > That's a worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a > false presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality > is that broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and > speed of Internet connections. > > Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 > million from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of > Entropy Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users > at home is 94%, and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet > with broadband. A typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a > decade ago. Wireless bandwidth growth per capita has been no less > impressive, showing a 500-fold increase since 2000. > > Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment > in 2008 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital > investment. Nominal capital investment in telecom between 2000 and > 2008 was more than $3.5 trillion. > > Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this > private progress and point to international rankings. According to > OECD estimates, the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband > penetration per capita. But because household sizes differ from > country to country, and the U.S. has relatively large households, the > per capita figures can be misleading. A better way to gauge wired > broadband connections is per household, not per person. By that measure >the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th. > Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband > penetration is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology > Policy Institute notes that "at the current rates of broadband > adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of months, > and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within the >next few years." > Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market > failure thesis. "In any industry subject to significant technological > change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be > forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products > and services," said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to > the FCC. "In the case of broadband services, it's clear that the > market is shifting generally in the direction of faster speeds and >
Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
Forgive me if I'm reading the report wrong but isnt "deprived" a strong word considering the take rate according to the report is only 75%? My take rate here is only about 20% of the LOS customers. Most people here either dont want it or cant afford it. So, why waste resources building out to them? -RickG On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Jack Unger wrote: > Sure coverage is "increasing" but that's just a distraction. The issue is > that the current level of home broadband Internet access is way too low and > millions of people are deprived of Internet access at home (or in a > home-based business). The article is nothing more than a thinly-veiled hit > piece for the telcos. Without saying so, the article argues for keeping > millions living in the past, without having the benefits of the Internet to > improve their lives. This is as clear as the nose on my face. (No, a picture > is NOT attached) :) > > jack > > > > > Jeff Broadwick wrote: > > I don't think it ignores that, it is suggesting that the private sector is > in the process of closing that gap, without government "investment" and/or > intervention. > > I don't believe that it is arguable that coverage is increasing...that's the > net effect of the whole WISP industry. > > > Regards, > > Jeff > > > Jeff Broadwick > ImageStream > 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) > +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org > ] On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:28 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ > > Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more > likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American > households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece > (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos. > > jack > > > Jeff Broadwick wrote: > > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht > ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop > > > > * REVIEW & OUTLOOK > * JANUARY 20, 2010 > > A 'National Broadband Plan' > One more solution in search of a problem. > > > The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it > will miss a February deadline for delivering a "national broadband > plan" and requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing > deadlines, nearly everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed > > > Internet. > > > As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a > plan to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. > That's a worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a > false presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality > is that broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and > speed of Internet connections. > > Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 > million from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of > Entropy Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users > at home is 94%, and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet > with broadband. A typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a > decade ago. Wireless bandwidth growth per capita has been no less > impressive, showing a 500-fold increase since 2000. > > Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment > in 2008 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital > investment. Nominal capital investment in telecom between 2000 and > 2008 was more than $3.5 trillion. > > Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this > private progress and point to international rankings. According to > OECD estimates, the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband > penetration per capita. But because household sizes differ from > country to country, and the U.S. has relatively large households, the > per capita figures can be misleading. A better way to gauge wired > broadband connections is per household, not per person. By that measure > > > the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th. > > > Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband > penetration is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology > Policy Institute notes that "at the current rates of broadband > adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of months, > and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within the > > > next few years." > > > Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market > failure thesis. "In any industry subject to significant technological > change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be > forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products > and services," said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to > the FCC. "In the case of broadband services, it's clear that the > market is shifting generally in the direction of faster speeds
Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
Right: The Technology Policy Institute notes that "at the current rates of broadband adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of months, and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within the next few years." Now, how many here are updating their business models to compete with the government? -RickG On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: > I don't think it ignores that, it is suggesting that the private sector is > in the process of closing that gap, without government "investment" and/or > intervention. > > I don't believe that it is arguable that coverage is increasing...that's > the > net effect of the whole WISP industry. > > > Regards, > > Jeff > > > Jeff Broadwick > ImageStream > 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) > +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:28 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ > > Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more > likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American > households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece > (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos. > > jack > > > Jeff Broadwick wrote: > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376 > > 552.ht > > ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop > > > > > > > > * REVIEW & OUTLOOK > > * JANUARY 20, 2010 > > > > A 'National Broadband Plan' > > One more solution in search of a problem. > > > > > > The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it > > will miss a February deadline for delivering a "national broadband > > plan" and requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing > > deadlines, nearly everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed > Internet. > > > > As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a > > plan to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. > > That's a worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a > > false presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality > > is that broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and > > speed of Internet connections. > > > > Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 > > million from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of > > Entropy Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users > > at home is 94%, and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet > > with broadband. A typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a > > decade ago. Wireless bandwidth growth per capita has been no less > > impressive, showing a 500-fold increase since 2000. > > > > Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment > > in 2008 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital > > investment. Nominal capital investment in telecom between 2000 and > > 2008 was more than $3.5 trillion. > > > > Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this > > private progress and point to international rankings. According to > > OECD estimates, the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband > > penetration per capita. But because household sizes differ from > > country to country, and the U.S. has relatively large households, the > > per capita figures can be misleading. A better way to gauge wired > > broadband connections is per household, not per person. By that measure > the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th. > > > > Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband > > penetration is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology > > Policy Institute notes that "at the current rates of broadband > > adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of months, > > and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within the > next few years." > > > > Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market > > failure thesis. "In any industry subject to significant technological > > change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be > > forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products > > and services," said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to > > the FCC. "In the case of broadband services, it's clear that the > > market is shifting generally in the direction of faster speeds and > additional mobility." > > > > Justice concludes that while "enacting some form of regulation to > > prevent certain providers from exercising monopoly control may be > tempting > . . . > > care must be taken to avoid stifling the infrastructure investments > > needed to expand broadband access." > > > > No matter, the default position of the Obama Administration is that > > little useful happens without government, so the FCC is busy planning. > > Chairman Julius
Re: [WISPA] stolen solar site
Ya, I figured you thought of that. Now, if you could redirect their web session and phish them to enter in their contact info! On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > That's what we're doing. grin Great minds and all. > > It did come online for a bit yesterday. Not long enough to do any good > though. > > Maybe they'll try a bit harder :-). > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "RickG" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 8:28 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] stolen solar site > > > > Just a thought but I'd authorize the CPE to work so they use it. Then you > > can track them down! > > -RickG > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Marlon K. Schafer > > wrote: > > > >> Heya Tracy, > >> > >> Turns out this was a misunderstanding. The equipment that got stolen > was > >> the CPE at the office in TOWN, not the solar site out in the sticks. > >> > >> Not sure how those wires got crossed, but the solar sit is still working > >> well. > >> > >> We did see the cpe come online for a few seconds since we figured this > >> out > >> though. It'll be interesting to see if we can figure out how to track > >> down > >> who stole it :-). > >> marlon > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "Tracy Tippett" > >> To: > >> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 12:07 PM > >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] stolen solar site > >> > >> > >> > > >> > Hi Marlon, > >> > > >> > Sorry about your gear - give me a ring > >> > > >> > Tracy Tippett > >> > 866-582-7287 > >> > > >> > --Original Mail-- > >> > From: "Marlon K. Schafer" > >> > To: "WISPA General List" > >> > Sent: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:50:47 -0800 > >> > Subject: [WISPA] stolen solar site > >> > > >> > Deep sigh. > >> > > >> > I put up my first solar site 3 weeks ago. Today it's gone. $3,000 in > >> > hardware, poof. > >> > > >> > What do you guys do to secure them? > >> > > >> > I hope the jerks fell of the cliff's and got hurt! > >> > > >> > It's not like the whole world even know the gear was out there. > Pretty > >> > remote location, not at all publicized. > >> > > >> > Merry Christmas and a Happy New year eh? > >> > > >> > ug > >> > marlon > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > >> > http://signup.wispa.org/ > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >> > > >> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> > > >> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > >> > http://signup.wispa.org/ > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >> > > >> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> > > >> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! > >> http://signup.wispa.org/ > >> > >> > > >> > >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >> > >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> > >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >> > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Wireless Roaming
I that while moving or in place? I've used Alvarion 900 for fixed locations before and wasnt too happy with the throughput. Of course, if it works 99% while roaming, it would have bragging rights. -RickG On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Jeremie Chism wrote: > I have a 100 police car deployment using alvarion 900mhz units with > static public ip addresses that roam through the city. Average > throughput is 1.2-1.5 mb down 350-700k up. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 20, 2010, at 1:03 AM, RickG wrote: > > > A local city has contacted me to assist them with wireless for their > > emergency vehicles - yes, roaming. The city proper is about 1-2 > > miles wide > > and 7 mile long. They have 3 water tanks (125') and a tower at city > > hall > > (80'). Hills not bad but lots of trees. They are currently spending > > $100k/year for Sprint cards. > > Any suggestions for equipment should I look at? > > -RickG > > > > > > --- > > --- > > --- > > --- > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > --- > > --- > > --- > > --- > > > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Wireless Roaming
I'll be discussing this with Butch. Speaking of which - I had Butch upgrade my RB750G firewall with his QOS script. I works very well! -RickG On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Brian Webster wrote: > Seems like I remember Butch Evans talking about a deployment he did like > this with Microtik. > > > > Thank You, > Brian Webster > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on > Behalf Of RickG > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 2:04 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: [WISPA] Wireless Roaming > > > A local city has contacted me to assist them with wireless for their > emergency vehicles - yes, roaming. The city proper is about 1-2 miles wide > and 7 mile long. They have 3 water tanks (125') and a tower at city hall > (80'). Hills not bad but lots of trees. They are currently spending > $100k/year for Sprint cards. > Any suggestions for equipment should I look at? > -RickG > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Wireless Roaming
I knew you did Marlon - I've seen your pics. I dont recall which equipment you used? -RickG On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > Hi Rick, > > We've got a system up and running for a small town. It's working well last > I knew. > > Not totally seamless roaming, but pretty close. It'll also work in other > communities where people have open routers. > > Butch, your email is ringing! > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "RickG" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 11:03 PM > Subject: [WISPA] Wireless Roaming > > > >A local city has contacted me to assist them with wireless for their > > emergency vehicles - yes, roaming. The city proper is about 1-2 miles > wide > > and 7 mile long. They have 3 water tanks (125') and a tower at city hall > > (80'). Hills not bad but lots of trees. They are currently spending > > $100k/year for Sprint cards. > > Any suggestions for equipment should I look at? > > -RickG > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
Thanks! I feel real affectionate towards the little guy. That's why I keep him here, real close by me for 18 hours every day. Here's here right now and he just said "Hi Marlon". BTW, he's wearing his Studebaker hat again. jack Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Nice teddy bear! - Original Message - From: "Mike Hammett" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ http://www.wispa.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/Jack.JPG :-p WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Network Design - Technical Writing - Technical Training Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities Since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
Nice teddy bear! - Original Message - From: "Mike Hammett" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ > http://www.wispa.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/Jack.JPG > > :-p > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
OK, as I understand that the report is based upon the 477 data? marlon - Original Message - From: Jack Unger To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:41 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ Marlon, See the attached report. Go to Table 2 on page 11. Look at the last cell in the lower, right-hand corner. jack Marlon K. Schafer wrote: I still don't buy that number in the first place. I wish I knew more about how Brian came up with it. What % of rural households does that work out to be? marlon - Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos. jack Jeff Broadwick wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop * REVIEW & OUTLOOK * JANUARY 20, 2010 A 'National Broadband Plan' One more solution in search of a problem. The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will miss a February deadline for delivering a "national broadband plan" and requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet. As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a plan to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of Internet connections. Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 million from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is 94%, and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a 500-fold increase since 2000. Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in 2008 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment. Nominal capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5 trillion. Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this private progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD estimates, the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not per person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th. Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband penetration is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy Institute notes that "at the current rates of broadband adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of months, and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within the next few years." Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market failure thesis. "In any industry subject to significant technological change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products and services," said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to the FCC. "In the case of broadband services, it's clear that the market is shifting generally in the direction of faster speeds and additional mobility." Justice concludes that while "enacting some form of regulation to prevent certain providers from exercising monopoly control may be tempting . . . care must be taken to avoid stifling the infrastructure investments needed to expand broadband access." No matter, the default position of the Obama Administration is that little useful happens without government, so the FCC is busy planning. Chairman Julius Genachowski is sympathetic to net neutrality regulations that would prevent Internet service providers from using differentiated pricing to manage Web traffic. Liberal interest groups like Public Knowledge and Harvard's Berkman Center for the Internet and Society are urging the agency to reinstitute "open access" mandates that would force cable operators and phone companies to share their infrastructure with rivals at government-set prices. The irony is that the private investment and innovation of recent years have occurred in the wake of the FCC rolling back similar rules that held ba
Re: [WISPA] Public IP behind Transparent Bridge
Yes you can do route the publics over a internal private ip network but of course you do not want/need to nat. Drawback (advantage) is that people on the outside can not traceroute through your internal network because you use private ips but that don't prohibit them from reaching the public ips on your inside internal network. This is sent from a machine with a public of 12.x.x.158 in between the location I'm at and my core router (connected to my upstream) I have 2 routers with ONLY private ips. / Eje -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 4:48 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Public IP behind Transparent Bridge I hear ya. If not by bridging, what other option could be used to move the public IP? I NAT everything, public IP's big mega mucho $$ for me, hate it. Can you route the public through a network that is all NAT? Just for future knowledge Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of David E. Smith Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:45 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Public IP behind Transparent Bridge On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 15:45, Robert West wrote: > Before I start tearing into things and make a mess for myself, can one have > a public IP behind a transparent bridge? Yup. I can vouch for Josh Luthman's instructions. Heck, I have the whole "turn a pair of Mikrotik radios into transparent bridges" instructions down to a one-pager, suitable for the field techs to use. While many on this list preach that bridging is bad (and they're often right), the ability to turn a pair of boards into an easy drop-in replacement/upgrade for older bridging-only gear (Trango 5800, I'm looking at you) is a powerful one. David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Public IP behind Transparent Bridge
I hear ya. If not by bridging, what other option could be used to move the public IP? I NAT everything, public IP's big mega mucho $$ for me, hate it. Can you route the public through a network that is all NAT? Just for future knowledge Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of David E. Smith Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:45 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Public IP behind Transparent Bridge On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 15:45, Robert West wrote: > Before I start tearing into things and make a mess for myself, can one have > a public IP behind a transparent bridge? Yup. I can vouch for Josh Luthman's instructions. Heck, I have the whole "turn a pair of Mikrotik radios into transparent bridges" instructions down to a one-pager, suitable for the field techs to use. While many on this list preach that bridging is bad (and they're often right), the ability to turn a pair of boards into an easy drop-in replacement/upgrade for older bridging-only gear (Trango 5800, I'm looking at you) is a powerful one. David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Public IP behind Transparent Bridge
Thanks for the link. I do transparent bridges within the network but never tried to move a public IP over one. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jim Patient Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:41 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Public IP behind Transparent Bridge Yep, works just fine. http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Transparently_Bridge_two_Networks Jim On 1/20/2010 3:45 PM, Robert West wrote: > Before I start tearing into things and make a mess for myself, can one have > a public IP behind a transparent bridge? I have a remote gateway that I > want to move the router functions away from and to a more accessible spot > one hop away but I would not like having to waste public IP's just to move a > router. Wanting to use 2 411ah boards, normally I don't assign an IP to > them for a transparent bridge but I never tried to port a public IP over > such a thing. > > > > > > Robert West > > Just Micro Digital Services Inc. > > 740-335-7020 > > > > Logo5 > > > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Public IP behind Transparent Bridge
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 15:45, Robert West wrote: > Before I start tearing into things and make a mess for myself, can one have > a public IP behind a transparent bridge? Yup. I can vouch for Josh Luthman's instructions. Heck, I have the whole "turn a pair of Mikrotik radios into transparent bridges" instructions down to a one-pager, suitable for the field techs to use. While many on this list preach that bridging is bad (and they're often right), the ability to turn a pair of boards into an easy drop-in replacement/upgrade for older bridging-only gear (Trango 5800, I'm looking at you) is a powerful one. David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Public IP behind Transparent Bridge
Cool. I thought as much. Thanks! Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 4:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Public IP behind Transparent Bridge I do that all the time. Just be sure to use mode=bridge (or ap-bridge) on one side mode=station-wds on the other side wds-mode=dynamic wds-default-bridge=bridge1 (or whatever bridge includes ether1 and wlan1) If a switch (dumb layer 2) would work, then the above configuration is the same. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --- Albert Einstein On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Robert West wrote: > Before I start tearing into things and make a mess for myself, can one have > a public IP behind a transparent bridge? I have a remote gateway that I > want to move the router functions away from and to a more accessible spot > one hop away but I would not like having to waste public IP's just to move > a > router. Wanting to use 2 411ah boards, normally I don't assign an IP to > them for a transparent bridge but I never tried to port a public IP over > such a thing. > > > > > > Robert West > > Just Micro Digital Services Inc. > > 740-335-7020 > > > > Logo5 > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Public IP behind Transparent Bridge
Yep, works just fine. http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Transparently_Bridge_two_Networks Jim On 1/20/2010 3:45 PM, Robert West wrote: > Before I start tearing into things and make a mess for myself, can one have > a public IP behind a transparent bridge? I have a remote gateway that I > want to move the router functions away from and to a more accessible spot > one hop away but I would not like having to waste public IP's just to move a > router. Wanting to use 2 411ah boards, normally I don't assign an IP to > them for a transparent bridge but I never tried to port a public IP over > such a thing. > > > > > > Robert West > > Just Micro Digital Services Inc. > > 740-335-7020 > > > > Logo5 > > > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Public IP behind Transparent Bridge
I do that all the time. Just be sure to use mode=bridge (or ap-bridge) on one side mode=station-wds on the other side wds-mode=dynamic wds-default-bridge=bridge1 (or whatever bridge includes ether1 and wlan1) If a switch (dumb layer 2) would work, then the above configuration is the same. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --- Albert Einstein On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Robert West wrote: > Before I start tearing into things and make a mess for myself, can one have > a public IP behind a transparent bridge? I have a remote gateway that I > want to move the router functions away from and to a more accessible spot > one hop away but I would not like having to waste public IP's just to move > a > router. Wanting to use 2 411ah boards, normally I don't assign an IP to > them for a transparent bridge but I never tried to port a public IP over > such a thing. > > > > > > Robert West > > Just Micro Digital Services Inc. > > 740-335-7020 > > > > Logo5 > > > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Public IP behind Transparent Bridge
Before I start tearing into things and make a mess for myself, can one have a public IP behind a transparent bridge? I have a remote gateway that I want to move the router functions away from and to a more accessible spot one hop away but I would not like having to waste public IP's just to move a router. Wanting to use 2 411ah boards, normally I don't assign an IP to them for a transparent bridge but I never tried to port a public IP over such a thing. Robert West Just Micro Digital Services Inc. 740-335-7020 Logo5 <> WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
Thanks Mike. Now you can see what I mean !!! Mike Hammett wrote: > http://www.wispa.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/Jack.JPG > > :-p > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > > From: Jack Unger > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:16 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ > > > Sure coverage is "increasing" but that's just a distraction. The issue is > that the current level of home broadband Internet access is way too low and > millions of people are deprived of Internet access at home (or in a > home-based business). The article is nothing more than a thinly-veiled hit > piece for the telcos. Without saying so, the article argues for keeping > millions living in the past, without having the benefits of the Internet to > improve their lives. This is as clear as the nose on my face. (No, a picture > is NOT attached) :) > > jack > > > > Jeff Broadwick wrote: > I don't think it ignores that, it is suggesting that the private sector is > in the process of closing that gap, without government "investment" and/or > intervention. > > I don't believe that it is arguable that coverage is increasing...that's the > net effect of the whole WISP industry. > > > Regards, > > Jeff > > > Jeff Broadwick > ImageStream > 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) > +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:28 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ > > Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more > likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American > households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece > (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos. > > jack > > > Jeff Broadwick wrote: > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376 > 552.ht > ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop > > > > * REVIEW & OUTLOOK > * JANUARY 20, 2010 > > A 'National Broadband Plan' > One more solution in search of a problem. > > > The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it > will miss a February deadline for delivering a "national broadband > plan" and requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing > deadlines, nearly everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed > Internet. > As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a > plan to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. > That's a worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a > false presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality > is that broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and > speed of Internet connections. > > Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 > million from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of > Entropy Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users > at home is 94%, and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet > with broadband. A typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a > decade ago. Wireless bandwidth growth per capita has been no less > impressive, showing a 500-fold increase since 2000. > > Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment > in 2008 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital > investment. Nominal capital investment in telecom between 2000 and > 2008 was more than $3.5 trillion. > > Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this > private progress and point to international rankings. According to > OECD estimates, the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband > penetration per capita. But because household sizes differ from > country to country, and the U.S. has relatively large households, the > per capita figures can be misleading. A better way to gauge wired > broadband connections is per household, not per person. By that measure > the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th. > Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband > penetration is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology > Policy Institute notes that "at the current rates of broadband > adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of months, > and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within the > next few years." > Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market > failure thesis. "In any industry subject to significant technological > change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be > forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products > and services," said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to > the FCC. "In the case of broadband services, it's clear that the > market is shifting generally in the direc
Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
http://www.wispa.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/Jack.JPG :-p - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Jack Unger Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:16 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ Sure coverage is "increasing" but that's just a distraction. The issue is that the current level of home broadband Internet access is way too low and millions of people are deprived of Internet access at home (or in a home-based business). The article is nothing more than a thinly-veiled hit piece for the telcos. Without saying so, the article argues for keeping millions living in the past, without having the benefits of the Internet to improve their lives. This is as clear as the nose on my face. (No, a picture is NOT attached) :) jack Jeff Broadwick wrote: I don't think it ignores that, it is suggesting that the private sector is in the process of closing that gap, without government "investment" and/or intervention. I don't believe that it is arguable that coverage is increasing...that's the net effect of the whole WISP industry. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:28 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos. jack Jeff Broadwick wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376 552.ht ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop * REVIEW & OUTLOOK * JANUARY 20, 2010 A 'National Broadband Plan' One more solution in search of a problem. The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will miss a February deadline for delivering a "national broadband plan" and requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet. As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a plan to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of Internet connections. Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 million from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is 94%, and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a 500-fold increase since 2000. Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in 2008 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment. Nominal capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5 trillion. Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this private progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD estimates, the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not per person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th. Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband penetration is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy Institute notes that "at the current rates of broadband adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of months, and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within the next few years." Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market failure thesis. "In any industry subject to significant technological change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products and services," said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to the FCC. "In the case of broadband services, it's clear that the market is shifting generally in the direction of faster speeds and additional mobility." Justice concludes that while "enacting some form of regulation to prevent certain providers from exercising monopoly control may be tempting . . . care must be taken to avoid stifling the infrastructure investments needed to
Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
I suppose you could look at it that way, but I didn't read that in there at all. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) _ From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ Sure coverage is "increasing" but that's just a distraction. The issue is that the current level of home broadband Internet access is way too low and millions of people are deprived of Internet access at home (or in a home-based business). The article is nothing more than a thinly-veiled hit piece for the telcos. Without saying so, the article argues for keeping millions living in the past, without having the benefits of the Internet to improve their lives. This is as clear as the nose on my face. (No, a picture is NOT attached) :) jack Jeff Broadwick wrote: I don't think it ignores that, it is suggesting that the private sector is in the process of closing that gap, without government "investment" and/or intervention. I don't believe that it is arguable that coverage is increasing...that's the net effect of the whole WISP industry. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:28 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos. jack Jeff Broadwick wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376 552.ht ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop * REVIEW & OUTLOOK * JANUARY 20, 2010 A 'National Broadband Plan' One more solution in search of a problem. The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will miss a February deadline for delivering a "national broadband plan" and requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet. As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a plan to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of Internet connections. Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 million from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is 94%, and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a 500-fold increase since 2000. Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in 2008 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment. Nominal capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5 trillion. Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this private progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD estimates, the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not per person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th. Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband penetration is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy Institute notes that "at the current rates of broadband adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of months, and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within the next few years." Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market failure thesis. "In any industry subject to significant technological change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products and services," said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to the FCC. "In the case of broadband services, it's clear that the market is shifting generally in the direction of faster speeds and additional mob
Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
Sure coverage is "increasing" but that's just a distraction. The issue is that the current level of home broadband Internet access is way too low and millions of people are deprived of Internet access at home (or in a home-based business). The article is nothing more than a thinly-veiled hit piece for the telcos. Without saying so, the article argues for keeping millions living in the past, without having the benefits of the Internet to improve their lives. This is as clear as the nose on my face. (No, a picture is NOT attached) :) jack Jeff Broadwick wrote: I don't think it ignores that, it is suggesting that the private sector is in the process of closing that gap, without government "investment" and/or intervention. I don't believe that it is arguable that coverage is increasing...that's the net effect of the whole WISP industry. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:28 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos. jack Jeff Broadwick wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376 552.ht ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop * REVIEW & OUTLOOK * JANUARY 20, 2010 A 'National Broadband Plan' One more solution in search of a problem. The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will miss a February deadline for delivering a "national broadband plan" and requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet. As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a plan to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of Internet connections. Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 million from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is 94%, and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a 500-fold increase since 2000. Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in 2008 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment. Nominal capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5 trillion. Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this private progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD estimates, the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not per person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th. Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband penetration is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy Institute notes that "at the current rates of broadband adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of months, and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within the next few years." Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market failure thesis. "In any industry subject to significant technological change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products and services," said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to the FCC. "In the case of broadband services, it's clear that the market is shifting generally in the direction of faster speeds and additional mobility." Justice concludes that while "enacting some form of regulation to prevent certain providers from exercising monopoly control may be tempting . . . care must be taken to avoid stifling the infrastructure investments needed to expand broadband access." No matter, the default position of the Obama Administration is that little useful happens without government, so the FCC is busy planning. Chairman Julius Gen
Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
I don't think it ignores that, it is suggesting that the private sector is in the process of closing that gap, without government "investment" and/or intervention. I don't believe that it is arguable that coverage is increasing...that's the net effect of the whole WISP industry. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:28 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos. jack Jeff Broadwick wrote: > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376 > 552.ht > ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop > > > > * REVIEW & OUTLOOK > * JANUARY 20, 2010 > > A 'National Broadband Plan' > One more solution in search of a problem. > > > The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it > will miss a February deadline for delivering a "national broadband > plan" and requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing > deadlines, nearly everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet. > > As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a > plan to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. > That's a worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a > false presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality > is that broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and > speed of Internet connections. > > Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 > million from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of > Entropy Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users > at home is 94%, and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet > with broadband. A typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a > decade ago. Wireless bandwidth growth per capita has been no less > impressive, showing a 500-fold increase since 2000. > > Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment > in 2008 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital > investment. Nominal capital investment in telecom between 2000 and > 2008 was more than $3.5 trillion. > > Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this > private progress and point to international rankings. According to > OECD estimates, the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband > penetration per capita. But because household sizes differ from > country to country, and the U.S. has relatively large households, the > per capita figures can be misleading. A better way to gauge wired > broadband connections is per household, not per person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th. > > Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband > penetration is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology > Policy Institute notes that "at the current rates of broadband > adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of months, > and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within the next few years." > > Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market > failure thesis. "In any industry subject to significant technological > change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be > forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products > and services," said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to > the FCC. "In the case of broadband services, it's clear that the > market is shifting generally in the direction of faster speeds and additional mobility." > > Justice concludes that while "enacting some form of regulation to > prevent certain providers from exercising monopoly control may be tempting . . . > care must be taken to avoid stifling the infrastructure investments > needed to expand broadband access." > > No matter, the default position of the Obama Administration is that > little useful happens without government, so the FCC is busy planning. > Chairman Julius Genachowski is sympathetic to net neutrality > regulations that would prevent Internet service providers from using > differentiated pricing to manage Web traffic. Liberal interest groups > like Public Knowledge and Harvard's Berkman Center for the Internet > and Society are urging the agency to reinstitute "open access" > mandates that would force cable operators and phone companies to share > their infrastructure with rivals at government-set prices. > > The irony is that the private investment and innovation of recent > years have occurred in the
Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
Good point Mike Hammett wrote: We have no one but ourselves to blame for that one. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Jack Unger" Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:27 AM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos. jack Jeff Broadwick wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop * REVIEW & OUTLOOK * JANUARY 20, 2010 A 'National Broadband Plan' One more solution in search of a problem. The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will miss a February deadline for delivering a "national broadband plan" and requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet. As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a plan to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of Internet connections. Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 million from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is 94%, and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a 500-fold increase since 2000. Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in 2008 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment. Nominal capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5 trillion. Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this private progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD estimates, the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not per person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th. Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband penetration is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy Institute notes that "at the current rates of broadband adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of months, and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within the next few years." Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market failure thesis. "In any industry subject to significant technological change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products and services," said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to the FCC. "In the case of broadband services, it's clear that the market is shifting generally in the direction of faster speeds and additional mobility." Justice concludes that while "enacting some form of regulation to prevent certain providers from exercising monopoly control may be tempting . . . care must be taken to avoid stifling the infrastructure investments needed to expand broadband access." No matter, the default position of the Obama Administration is that little useful happens without government, so the FCC is busy planning. Chairman Julius Genachowski is sympathetic to net neutrality regulations that would prevent Internet service providers from using differentiated pricing to manage Web traffic. Liberal interest groups like Public Knowledge and Harvard's Berkman Center for the Internet and Society are urging the agency to reinstitute "open access" mandates that would force cable operators and phone companies to share their infrastructure with rivals at government-set prices. The irony is that the private investment and innovation of recent years have occurred in the wake of the FCC rolling back similar rules that held back telecom in the 1990s. Consumers continue to have access to more and more broadband services, while Google, YouTube, iTunes, Facebook and Netflix originated in the U.S. Doesn't the Obama Administration have enough to do than mess with a part of the U.S. economy that is working well? Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick Sales Manager, ImageStrea
Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
We have no one but ourselves to blame for that one. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Jack Unger" Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:27 AM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ > Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more > likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American > households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece > (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos. > > jack > > > Jeff Broadwick wrote: >> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht >> ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop >> >> >> >> * REVIEW & OUTLOOK >> * JANUARY 20, 2010 >> >> A 'National Broadband Plan' >> One more solution in search of a problem. >> >> >> The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will >> miss a February deadline for delivering a "national broadband plan" and >> requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly >> everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet. >> >> As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a >> plan >> to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a >> worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false >> presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that >> broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of >> Internet connections. >> >> Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 >> million >> from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy >> Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is >> 94%, >> and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A >> typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless >> bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a >> 500-fold >> increase since 2000. >> >> Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in >> 2008 >> alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment. >> Nominal >> capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5 >> trillion. >> >> Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this >> private >> progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD >> estimates, >> the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But >> because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has >> relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A >> better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not per >> person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th. >> >> Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband >> penetration >> is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy Institute >> notes that "at the current rates of broadband adoption the U.S. is behind >> the leaders only by a number of months, and all wealthy OECD countries >> will >> reach a saturation point within the next few years." >> >> Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market >> failure thesis. "In any industry subject to significant technological >> change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be >> forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products and >> services," said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to the FCC. >> "In >> the case of broadband services, it's clear that the market is shifting >> generally in the direction of faster speeds and additional mobility." >> >> Justice concludes that while "enacting some form of regulation to prevent >> certain providers from exercising monopoly control may be tempting . . . >> care must be taken to avoid stifling the infrastructure investments >> needed >> to expand broadband access." >> >> No matter, the default position of the Obama Administration is that >> little >> useful happens without government, so the FCC is busy planning. Chairman >> Julius Genachowski is sympathetic to net neutrality regulations that >> would >> prevent Internet service providers from using differentiated pricing to >> manage Web traffic. Liberal interest groups like Public Knowledge and >> Harvard's Berkman Center for the Internet and Society are urging the >> agency >> to reinstitute "open access" mandates that would force cable operators >> and >> phone companies to share their infrastructure with rivals at >> government-set >> prices. >> >> The irony is that the private investment and innovation of recent years >> have >> occurred in the wake of the FCC rolling back similar rules that held back >> telecom in the 1990s. Consumers continue to have access to more and more >> broadband services, while Google, YouTube, iTunes, Fa
Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
I still don't buy that number in the first place. I wish I knew more about how Brian came up with it. What % of rural households does that work out to be? marlon - Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:27 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ > Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more > likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American > households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece > (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos. > > jack > > > Jeff Broadwick wrote: >> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht >> ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop >> >> >> >> * REVIEW & OUTLOOK >> * JANUARY 20, 2010 >> >> A 'National Broadband Plan' >> One more solution in search of a problem. >> >> >> The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will >> miss a February deadline for delivering a "national broadband plan" and >> requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly >> everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet. >> >> As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a >> plan >> to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a >> worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false >> presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that >> broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of >> Internet connections. >> >> Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 >> million >> from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy >> Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is >> 94%, >> and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A >> typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless >> bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a >> 500-fold >> increase since 2000. >> >> Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in >> 2008 >> alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment. >> Nominal >> capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5 >> trillion. >> >> Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this >> private >> progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD >> estimates, >> the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But >> because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has >> relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A >> better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not per >> person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th. >> >> Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband >> penetration >> is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy Institute >> notes that "at the current rates of broadband adoption the U.S. is behind >> the leaders only by a number of months, and all wealthy OECD countries >> will >> reach a saturation point within the next few years." >> >> Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market >> failure thesis. "In any industry subject to significant technological >> change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be >> forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products and >> services," said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to the FCC. >> "In >> the case of broadband services, it's clear that the market is shifting >> generally in the direction of faster speeds and additional mobility." >> >> Justice concludes that while "enacting some form of regulation to prevent >> certain providers from exercising monopoly control may be tempting . . . >> care must be taken to avoid stifling the infrastructure investments >> needed >> to expand broadband access." >> >> No matter, the default position of the Obama Administration is that >> little >> useful happens without government, so the FCC is busy planning. Chairman >> Julius Genachowski is sympathetic to net neutrality regulations that >> would >> prevent Internet service providers from using differentiated pricing to >> manage Web traffic. Liberal interest groups like Public Knowledge and >> Harvard's Berkman Center for the Internet and Society are urging the >> agency >> to reinstitute "open access" mandates that would force cable operators >> and >> phone companies to share their infrastructure with rivals at >> government-set >> prices. >> >> The irony is that the private investment and innovation of recent years >> have >> occurred in the wake of the FCC rolling back similar rules that held back >> telecom in the 1990s. Consumers continue to have access to more and more >> broadband services, while Google, YouT
Re: [WISPA] From Today's WSJ
Sorry but this article (accidentally or intentionally) misses or (more likely) ignores the point that 24 or more million occupied American households have no access to broadband. The WSJ is merely a mouthpiece (especially now that Rupurt Murdoch owns it) for the telcos. jack Jeff Broadwick wrote: > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht > ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop > > > > * REVIEW & OUTLOOK > * JANUARY 20, 2010 > > A 'National Broadband Plan' > One more solution in search of a problem. > > > The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will > miss a February deadline for delivering a "national broadband plan" and > requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly > everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet. > > As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a plan > to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a > worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false > presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that > broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of > Internet connections. > > Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 million > from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy > Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is 94%, > and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A > typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless > bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a 500-fold > increase since 2000. > > Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in 2008 > alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment. Nominal > capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5 > trillion. > > Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this private > progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD estimates, > the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But > because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has > relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A > better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not per > person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th. > > Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband penetration > is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy Institute > notes that "at the current rates of broadband adoption the U.S. is behind > the leaders only by a number of months, and all wealthy OECD countries will > reach a saturation point within the next few years." > > Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market > failure thesis. "In any industry subject to significant technological > change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be > forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products and > services," said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to the FCC. "In > the case of broadband services, it's clear that the market is shifting > generally in the direction of faster speeds and additional mobility." > > Justice concludes that while "enacting some form of regulation to prevent > certain providers from exercising monopoly control may be tempting . . . > care must be taken to avoid stifling the infrastructure investments needed > to expand broadband access." > > No matter, the default position of the Obama Administration is that little > useful happens without government, so the FCC is busy planning. Chairman > Julius Genachowski is sympathetic to net neutrality regulations that would > prevent Internet service providers from using differentiated pricing to > manage Web traffic. Liberal interest groups like Public Knowledge and > Harvard's Berkman Center for the Internet and Society are urging the agency > to reinstitute "open access" mandates that would force cable operators and > phone companies to share their infrastructure with rivals at government-set > prices. > > The irony is that the private investment and innovation of recent years have > occurred in the wake of the FCC rolling back similar rules that held back > telecom in the 1990s. Consumers continue to have access to more and more > broadband services, while Google, YouTube, iTunes, Facebook and Netflix > originated in the U.S. > > Doesn't the Obama Administration have enough to do than mess with a part of > the U.S. economy that is working well? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > Jeff > > > Jeff Broadwick > Sales Manager, ImageStream > 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) > +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) > +1 574-935-8488 (Fax) > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http
[WISPA] Time Warner and Comcast TV Everywhere Trials
Got an email yesterday from Time Warner saying they are now taking Beta Testers in my area for the TV Everywhere service. In case you missed it, Comcast and Time Warner are teamed up to provide video content over broadband like HULU and others. I assume that this is a product being used to provide their "Start Over" service where if you missed the beginning of a show on their cable system you can press a button to go to the beginning. http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/time-warner-comcast-depart-from-hulu- model-with-tv-everywhere/ Cable Companies moving their content to delivery via broadband and eventually shifting the burden of the infrastructure to the ISP. It's only getting worse. Time Warner and Comcast should donate free bandwidth if they expect us to handle all of this. Only seems fair. Robert West Just Micro Digital Services Inc. 740-335-7020 Logo5 <> WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] stolen solar site
Reminds me of a thing that happened here a few years ago. Guy breaks into a convenient store after hours. Steals a bunch of stuff, took this big box thing from a shelf behind the counter that kinda looked like a safe. Couldn't get the "safe" opened. Cops found it dumped at the park. Turns out it was actually the camera system. Nice close up pictures of the perpetrator at his house trying to open the "safe". Camera system had internal battery backup... He admitted thinking it was a safe. The excuse, "It wasn't me" just couldn't be defended. Love it when technology actually works. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:18 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] stolen solar site That's what we're doing. grin Great minds and all. It did come online for a bit yesterday. Not long enough to do any good though. Maybe they'll try a bit harder :-). marlon - Original Message - From: "RickG" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 8:28 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] stolen solar site > Just a thought but I'd authorize the CPE to work so they use it. Then you > can track them down! > -RickG > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Marlon K. Schafer > wrote: > >> Heya Tracy, >> >> Turns out this was a misunderstanding. The equipment that got stolen was >> the CPE at the office in TOWN, not the solar site out in the sticks. >> >> Not sure how those wires got crossed, but the solar sit is still working >> well. >> >> We did see the cpe come online for a few seconds since we figured this >> out >> though. It'll be interesting to see if we can figure out how to track >> down >> who stole it :-). >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Tracy Tippett" >> To: >> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 12:07 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] stolen solar site >> >> >> > >> > Hi Marlon, >> > >> > Sorry about your gear - give me a ring >> > >> > Tracy Tippett >> > 866-582-7287 >> > >> > --Original Mail-- >> > From: "Marlon K. Schafer" >> > To: "WISPA General List" >> > Sent: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:50:47 -0800 >> > Subject: [WISPA] stolen solar site >> > >> > Deep sigh. >> > >> > I put up my first solar site 3 weeks ago. Today it's gone. $3,000 in >> > hardware, poof. >> > >> > What do you guys do to secure them? >> > >> > I hope the jerks fell of the cliff's and got hurt! >> > >> > It's not like the whole world even know the gear was out there. Pretty >> > remote location, not at all publicized. >> > >> > Merry Christmas and a Happy New year eh? >> > >> > ug >> > marlon >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> > http://signup.wispa.org/ >> > >> >> > >> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> > >> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> > >> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> > http://signup.wispa.org/ >> > >> >> > >> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> > >> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> > >> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/
Re: [WISPA] Wireless Roaming
Hi Rick, We've got a system up and running for a small town. It's working well last I knew. Not totally seamless roaming, but pretty close. It'll also work in other communities where people have open routers. Butch, your email is ringing! marlon - Original Message - From: "RickG" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 11:03 PM Subject: [WISPA] Wireless Roaming >A local city has contacted me to assist them with wireless for their > emergency vehicles - yes, roaming. The city proper is about 1-2 miles wide > and 7 mile long. They have 3 water tanks (125') and a tower at city hall > (80'). Hills not bad but lots of trees. They are currently spending > $100k/year for Sprint cards. > Any suggestions for equipment should I look at? > -RickG > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] stolen solar site
If you ever want to see your radio again, leave $14.95 in unmarked change in the trash can at the corner of elm and main at 12 noon tomorrow. Don't ignore this, we're serious. No cops! -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:18 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] stolen solar site That's what we're doing. grin Great minds and all. It did come online for a bit yesterday. Not long enough to do any good though. Maybe they'll try a bit harder :-). marlon - Original Message - From: "RickG" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 8:28 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] stolen solar site > Just a thought but I'd authorize the CPE to work so they use it. Then you > can track them down! > -RickG > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Marlon K. Schafer > wrote: > >> Heya Tracy, >> >> Turns out this was a misunderstanding. The equipment that got stolen was >> the CPE at the office in TOWN, not the solar site out in the sticks. >> >> Not sure how those wires got crossed, but the solar sit is still working >> well. >> >> We did see the cpe come online for a few seconds since we figured this >> out >> though. It'll be interesting to see if we can figure out how to track >> down >> who stole it :-). >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Tracy Tippett" >> To: >> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 12:07 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] stolen solar site >> >> >> > >> > Hi Marlon, >> > >> > Sorry about your gear - give me a ring >> > >> > Tracy Tippett >> > 866-582-7287 >> > >> > --Original Mail-- >> > From: "Marlon K. Schafer" >> > To: "WISPA General List" >> > Sent: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:50:47 -0800 >> > Subject: [WISPA] stolen solar site >> > >> > Deep sigh. >> > >> > I put up my first solar site 3 weeks ago. Today it's gone. $3,000 in >> > hardware, poof. >> > >> > What do you guys do to secure them? >> > >> > I hope the jerks fell of the cliff's and got hurt! >> > >> > It's not like the whole world even know the gear was out there. Pretty >> > remote location, not at all publicized. >> > >> > Merry Christmas and a Happy New year eh? >> > >> > ug >> > marlon >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> > http://signup.wispa.org/ >> > >> >> > >> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> > >> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> > >> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> > http://signup.wispa.org/ >> > >> >> > >> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> > >> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> > >> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] stolen solar site
That's what we're doing. grin Great minds and all. It did come online for a bit yesterday. Not long enough to do any good though. Maybe they'll try a bit harder :-). marlon - Original Message - From: "RickG" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 8:28 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] stolen solar site > Just a thought but I'd authorize the CPE to work so they use it. Then you > can track them down! > -RickG > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Marlon K. Schafer > wrote: > >> Heya Tracy, >> >> Turns out this was a misunderstanding. The equipment that got stolen was >> the CPE at the office in TOWN, not the solar site out in the sticks. >> >> Not sure how those wires got crossed, but the solar sit is still working >> well. >> >> We did see the cpe come online for a few seconds since we figured this >> out >> though. It'll be interesting to see if we can figure out how to track >> down >> who stole it :-). >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Tracy Tippett" >> To: >> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 12:07 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] stolen solar site >> >> >> > >> > Hi Marlon, >> > >> > Sorry about your gear - give me a ring >> > >> > Tracy Tippett >> > 866-582-7287 >> > >> > --Original Mail-- >> > From: "Marlon K. Schafer" >> > To: "WISPA General List" >> > Sent: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:50:47 -0800 >> > Subject: [WISPA] stolen solar site >> > >> > Deep sigh. >> > >> > I put up my first solar site 3 weeks ago. Today it's gone. $3,000 in >> > hardware, poof. >> > >> > What do you guys do to secure them? >> > >> > I hope the jerks fell of the cliff's and got hurt! >> > >> > It's not like the whole world even know the gear was out there. Pretty >> > remote location, not at all publicized. >> > >> > Merry Christmas and a Happy New year eh? >> > >> > ug >> > marlon >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> > http://signup.wispa.org/ >> > >> >> > >> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> > >> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> > >> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> > http://signup.wispa.org/ >> > >> >> > >> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> > >> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> > >> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Radwin 1000
I have a client looking for a Radwin 1000 link. Does anyone on this list sell these units? If so, send me info off-line. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] From Today's WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652501608376552.ht ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop * REVIEW & OUTLOOK * JANUARY 20, 2010 A 'National Broadband Plan' One more solution in search of a problem. The Federal Communications Commission recently told Congress that it will miss a February deadline for delivering a "national broadband plan" and requested a one-month extension. If it keeps missing deadlines, nearly everyone in the U.S. might soon have high-speed Internet. As part of last year's stimulus package, Congress asked the FCC for a plan to ensure that everybody in the country has access to broadband. That's a worthy goal, but the idea of a government plan is based on a false presumption that the spread of broadband is stalled. The reality is that broadband adoption continues apace, as does the quality and speed of Internet connections. Between 2000 and 2008, residential broadband subscribers grew to 80 million from five million, according to a study by Bret Swanson of Entropy Economics. Broadband penetration among active Internet users at home is 94%, and nearly 99% of U.S. workers connect to the Internet with broadband. A typical cable modem today is 10 times faster than a decade ago. Wireless bandwidth growth per capita has been no less impressive, showing a 500-fold increase since 2000. Meanwhile, U.S. information and communications technology investment in 2008 alone totalled $455 billion, or 22% of all U.S. capital investment. Nominal capital investment in telecom between 2000 and 2008 was more than $3.5 trillion. Those who favor more government control of the Internet ignore this private progress and point to international rankings. According to OECD estimates, the U.S. ranks 15th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. But because household sizes differ from country to country, and the U.S. has relatively large households, the per capita figures can be misleading. A better way to gauge wired broadband connections is per household, not per person. By that measure the U.S. ranks somewhere between 8th and 10th. Such comparisons will soon be moot in any case because broadband penetration is growing rapidly in all OECD countries. The Technology Policy Institute notes that "at the current rates of broadband adoption the U.S. is behind the leaders only by a number of months, and all wealthy OECD countries will reach a saturation point within the next few years." Even the Obama Justice Department seems to reject the broadband market failure thesis. "In any industry subject to significant technological change, it is important that the evaluation of competition be forward-looking rather than based on static definitions of products and services," said the Antitrust Division in a January 4 filing to the FCC. "In the case of broadband services, it's clear that the market is shifting generally in the direction of faster speeds and additional mobility." Justice concludes that while "enacting some form of regulation to prevent certain providers from exercising monopoly control may be tempting . . . care must be taken to avoid stifling the infrastructure investments needed to expand broadband access." No matter, the default position of the Obama Administration is that little useful happens without government, so the FCC is busy planning. Chairman Julius Genachowski is sympathetic to net neutrality regulations that would prevent Internet service providers from using differentiated pricing to manage Web traffic. Liberal interest groups like Public Knowledge and Harvard's Berkman Center for the Internet and Society are urging the agency to reinstitute "open access" mandates that would force cable operators and phone companies to share their infrastructure with rivals at government-set prices. The irony is that the private investment and innovation of recent years have occurred in the wake of the FCC rolling back similar rules that held back telecom in the 1990s. Consumers continue to have access to more and more broadband services, while Google, YouTube, iTunes, Facebook and Netflix originated in the U.S. Doesn't the Obama Administration have enough to do than mess with a part of the U.S. economy that is working well? Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick Sales Manager, ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) +1 574-935-8488 (Fax) WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Wireless Roaming
Seems like I remember Butch Evans talking about a deployment he did like this with Microtik. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on Behalf Of RickG Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 2:04 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Wireless Roaming A local city has contacted me to assist them with wireless for their emergency vehicles - yes, roaming. The city proper is about 1-2 miles wide and 7 mile long. They have 3 water tanks (125') and a tower at city hall (80'). Hills not bad but lots of trees. They are currently spending $100k/year for Sprint cards. Any suggestions for equipment should I look at? -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Wireless Roaming
I have a 100 police car deployment using alvarion 900mhz units with static public ip addresses that roam through the city. Average throughput is 1.2-1.5 mb down 350-700k up. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 20, 2010, at 1:03 AM, RickG wrote: > A local city has contacted me to assist them with wireless for their > emergency vehicles - yes, roaming. The city proper is about 1-2 > miles wide > and 7 mile long. They have 3 water tanks (125') and a tower at city > hall > (80'). Hills not bad but lots of trees. They are currently spending > $100k/year for Sprint cards. > Any suggestions for equipment should I look at? > -RickG > > > --- > --- > --- > --- > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > --- > --- > --- > --- > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TESTing - Please Ignore
Pong On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Charles Wu wrote: > Ping > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
