[WISPA] Akamai / other caching servers
Could a squid caching server accomplish the same sort of bandwidth savings, maybe more due to the fact it is caching ALL the content not just Akamai? I've never use used a web cahce always had the bandwidth and the problems were not worth it Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 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] RB1100
The 1100 will do ospf fine but load them up with bgp 2 or more times and they suffer. We were going to use them and we changed plans to use a supermicro server with a 4 or 6 port NIC. The 1100 seems to be a good tower choice because it has enough ports to handle a set of gear without additional equipment in most cased. Add an 8 port managed switch along with it it can handle any configuration we have had. And from our experience there is no need to upgrade the memory unless you are doing something you shouldn't be doing any way. We put two full feeds on one with stock ram it fit fine. Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Return-Path: wireless-boun...@wispa.org Received: from junkmail.mvn.net (mx2.mvn.net [66.232.160.15]) by mail.brevardwireless.com with SMTP; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:10:07 -0400 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1283274607-3b552301-U6tSLJ Received: from outboundmail.mvn.net (outboundmail.mvn.net [66.232.160.104]) by junkmail.mvn.net with ESMTP id 0GsgpDN6jgikZFEb for sc...@brevardwireless.com; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:10:07 -0500 (CDT) X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org X-Barracuda-Apparent-Source-IP: 66.232.160.104 X-ASG-Whitelist: Client Received: from plesk.mvn.net (plesk-1.mvn.net [66.232.160.84]) by outboundmail.mvn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 127F0C7ED3 for sc...@brevardwireless.com; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:09:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: (qmail 2183 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2010 12:09:35 -0500 Received: from localhost (HELO plesk.mvn.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 31 Aug 2010 12:09:35 -0500 Delivered-To: 24-wirel...@wispa.org Received: (qmail 1331 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2010 12:09:28 -0500 Received: from mx1.mvn.net (HELO junkmail.mvn.net) (66.232.160.16) by webpanel.mvn.net with SMTP; 31 Aug 2010 12:09:28 -0500 Received: from mailserver.hrec.coop (hrec.coop [216.110.201.9]) by junkmail.mvn.net with ESMTP id W6M1t0glLFVEsaEs for wireless@wispa.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:09:25 -0500 (CDT) Received-SPF: pass (junkmail.mvn.net: domain of hrec.coop designates 216.110.201.9 as permitted sender) client-ip=216.110.201.9; envelope-from=prvs=185927bab3=pa...@hrec.coop; Received: from [192.168.117.100] (unverified [216.110.201.114]) by mailserver.hrec.coop (Vircom SMTPRS 4.7.840.0) with ESMTP id b0030724...@mailserver.hrec.coop for wireless@wispa.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:09:30 -0700 X-Modus-BlackList: 216.110.201.114=OK;pa...@hrec.coop=ok X-Modus-Trusted: 216.110.201.114=YES X-Modus-Audit: FALSE;0;0;0 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) From: Paul Gerstenberger pa...@hrec.coop In-Reply-To: a05fe165-1fc3-43c3-82a7-797933abc...@beamspeed.com Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:09:22 -0700 Message-Id: 60b297c3-f7a0-4c71-b336-930da9fa5...@hrec.coop References: 7cd05849$12967a61$5d35f9...@comE0FAAC2954BAC6459A09C629880F39524A8C11C91E @VMBX102.ihostexchange.netAANLkTimodOk8 wiwzanyojktdo_i_rqm0_txx-7nrg...@mail.gmail.com25AEAA3E16D5BF42ABFFB0BE951 c11e8b0c...@mail.avolutia.comAANLkTikNDeLq+a4nDLY xz5h0bcp3uptzuovk64ogm...@mail.gmail.com a05fe165-1fc3-43c3-82a7-797933abc...@beamspeed.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at mvn.net Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB1100 X-BeenThere: wireless@wispa.org X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [WISPA] RB1100 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org List-Id: WISPA General List wireless.wispa.org List-Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless, mailto:wireless-requ...@wispa.org?subject=unsubscribe List-Archive: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless List-Post: mailto:wireless@wispa.org List-Help: mailto:wireless-requ...@wispa.org?subject=help List-Subscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless, mailto:wireless-requ...@wispa.org?subject=subscribe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: wireless-boun...@wispa.org Errors-To: wireless-boun...@wispa.org X-Barracuda-Connect: outboundmail.mvn.net[66.232.160.104] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1283274607 X-Barracuda-URL: http://junkmail.mvn.net:80/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at mvn.net X-Rcpt-To: sc...@brevardwireless.com X-SmarterMail-Spam: Commtouch 0 [value: Unknown], SPF_Pass, DK_None, DKIM_None X-CTCH-RefId: str=0001.0A010209.4C7D37AC.0122,ss=1,fgs=0 X-SmarterMail-TotalSpamWeight: -2 I have the RB1000 and 1100s in production here as core routers (450G, 750G, 493AH's as tower-site routers, OSPF back to the core RB1x00s). Transitioning all our customers to them (about half done). Been stable so far, aside from my configuration screw-ups. Our only x86 device is running our user manager so we could throw more CPU at it and keep it out of the routing path, had been running the UM on one of the RB1000s but it was taxing the CPU. You could combine an RB1000 or other RB/x86 with a managed switch to pipe VLANs to more physical ports, we do that in
Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo lockups
We see it all of the time on the AP's. 6000 and 6600 units. I've only got a few left in the field now. We've replaced nearly all with MT units and haven't looked back! I did upgrade one to firmware 5.0.5 yesterday, we'll see if that finally fixes it. Still love the cpq units though. marlon - Original Message - From: Mark Dueck m...@netking.bz To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 9:05 PM Subject: [WISPA] Tranzeo lockups I've been having quite a bit of problems with Tranzeo radios not coming back online if I make a change to them remotely. Usualy this is with AP's or backhaul links. I'd say about 30% of the time they will not come back after making a change. Is anyone else experiencing this? Does UBNT ever have that problem, or MT? Mark 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] Akamai / other caching servers
Yes, but the bandwidth savings are not worth the headaches (another box or two to maintain, some sites don't like to be cached, customer support calls, web sites blocking a certain IP address because ALL the traffic from your network is coming from the cache server IP, etc.). Unless you are paying a FORTUNE for bandwidth, it's not worth doing. Travis Microserv On 9/1/2010 12:17 AM, Scott Carullo wrote: Could a squid caching server accomplish the same sort of bandwidth savings, maybe more due to the fact it is caching ALL the content not just Akamai? I've never use used a web cahce always had the bandwidth and the problems were not worth it Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 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] Tranzeo lockups
Grin. Thanks for passing it along Patrick. We've had the problem since before you worked for them though. Several years in fact. I still have a gaggle of these units sitting on the shelf. They ONLY get used for sites with 5 or less subscribers though. marlon - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary ple...@apertonet.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 7:25 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo lockups Just as an FYI folks, After seeing this thread I sent it to the Tranzeo guys and they taking a look at it. Please do, when you encounter issues such as these, report them to your vendor (regardless of brand). Getting a record, finding trends, etc. is the only way a vendor can uncover issues, then do root cause analysis and create fixes as necessary. I appreciate the value of seeking out list advice, but please remember to give your vendor a head's up too. Matt, et al, thanks for offering your advice. I passed those along as well. Cheers, Patrick Patrick Leary Aperto Networks (A Tranzeo Company) 813.426.4230 mobile -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:11 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo lockups If you are using Tranzeo TR5a, 49a or AP6000 series radios running in PtP mode on an all bridged network, they will lock up. Newer firmware helps, but does not completely resolve this problem. I ran in to this very problem recently while troubleshooting a client's network. It may not be the perfect solution, but one thing you could do that is quick an simple is install some of the Digital Loggers auto-ping/reboot devices at any site where you have a Tranzeo backhaul. Turn on the autoping to test for the opposite side of the link and you won't have to make any more drives. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 8/31/2010 9:50 AM, Steve Barnes wrote: I have 400+ Tranzeo CPQ's out and never have an issue with them not rebooting after a change. However I would never use a Tranzeo for an AP. Mikrotik AP to Tranzeo = stability and control. More info please: Models, Firmware, AP connecting to. (did you know there is a Tranzeo list on the WISPA list serve?) Steve Barnes General Manager PCS-WIN RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mark Dueck Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 12:05 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Tranzeo lockups I've been having quite a bit of problems with Tranzeo radios not coming back online if I make a change to them remotely. Usualy this is with AP's or backhaul links. I'd say about 30% of the time they will not come back after making a change. Is anyone else experiencing this? Does UBNT ever have that problem, or MT? Mark -- -- 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] Tranzeo lockups
I dropped Tranzeo several years ago after many runs of this. I got tired of it and as a small operator I couldn't be sending radios back all the time. Went to Deliberant and got a much better, more stable product with MANY more options and features and much more flexibility. Plus, they are cheaper!! That was one of the best decisions I've ever made since I've been doing wireless. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 7:28 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo lockups Grin. Thanks for passing it along Patrick. We've had the problem since before you worked for them though. Several years in fact. I still have a gaggle of these units sitting on the shelf. They ONLY get used for sites with 5 or less subscribers though. marlon - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary ple...@apertonet.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 7:25 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo lockups Just as an FYI folks, After seeing this thread I sent it to the Tranzeo guys and they taking a look at it. Please do, when you encounter issues such as these, report them to your vendor (regardless of brand). Getting a record, finding trends, etc. is the only way a vendor can uncover issues, then do root cause analysis and create fixes as necessary. I appreciate the value of seeking out list advice, but please remember to give your vendor a head's up too. Matt, et al, thanks for offering your advice. I passed those along as well. Cheers, Patrick Patrick Leary Aperto Networks (A Tranzeo Company) 813.426.4230 mobile -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:11 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo lockups If you are using Tranzeo TR5a, 49a or AP6000 series radios running in PtP mode on an all bridged network, they will lock up. Newer firmware helps, but does not completely resolve this problem. I ran in to this very problem recently while troubleshooting a client's network. It may not be the perfect solution, but one thing you could do that is quick an simple is install some of the Digital Loggers auto-ping/reboot devices at any site where you have a Tranzeo backhaul. Turn on the autoping to test for the opposite side of the link and you won't have to make any more drives. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 8/31/2010 9:50 AM, Steve Barnes wrote: I have 400+ Tranzeo CPQ's out and never have an issue with them not rebooting after a change. However I would never use a Tranzeo for an AP. Mikrotik AP to Tranzeo = stability and control. More info please: Models, Firmware, AP connecting to. (did you know there is a Tranzeo list on the WISPA list serve?) Steve Barnes General Manager PCS-WIN RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mark Dueck Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 12:05 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Tranzeo lockups I've been having quite a bit of problems with Tranzeo radios not coming back online if I make a change to them remotely. Usualy this is with AP's or backhaul links. I'd say about 30% of the time they will not come back after making a change. Is anyone else experiencing this? Does UBNT ever have that problem, or MT? Mark -- -- 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] netflix/hulu IP's
In areas where I already have 20mb line of sight sectors, yeah, no problem. But lets face it, to handle video, ISPs are going to have to make network upgrades at every sector and CPE, sooner or later. Who's gonna pay for that? Should I have to give up my profits this year, so that it can be re-invested into my network once again, so Hulu and NetFlix can continue to get rich? Even if I replace just the pre-existing customer CPE with a Ubiquiti, at $89/radio, that almost a year ROI to break even, IF I still charge the customer an additiaonl $9.95/month for their ability to use NetFlix and Hulu. Its sorta like fund raising. I got an idea... How about asking Hulu, NetFlix, and Google, to co-sign my Loan/Lease papers or better yet Lend me the money, to make the network upgrades that are necessary for my customers to use VIDEO adequately. I dont see them passing out Loan applications, nor do I see their CFO with a pen in hand. I am sick and tired of this attitude that consumers are entitled and content providers are entitled. They are not entitled to a free ride. I am not getting rich, and the facts are the majority of my customers need me. I provide something to them that they need. And video wasn't one of them initially. I never signed up for delivering Video. I CAN deliver video, but they have to pay for it, if they want it. Its not my responsibilty to pay for it. There is nothing worse than a moocher. Thats all these content providers do, looking for a free ride, mooch mooch mooch, while they sneak off to the bank with their large paycheck. Sure... I'm perfectly fine with the bandwdith management method of control. Bandwdith limit video web sites to 64kbps, and for $9.95 I'll bump it up to 1mbps. As a disclaimer... I dont currently block or limit anything. I mostly serve high capacity business, so I have not been hit much by the video bandwdith abuse yet, so I have been able to overlook the issue, and have not had to take any action. And as long as it is not a problem, I have no need to address it. But one day it will be a problem. And EVERYONE should ask, who should pay for it?. In some cases, maybe the ISP should pay for it. For example, If they are heathilly profitable, and have reach comfortable scale and finance abilty, and in a competitive environment, maybe it is then their responsibilty to stay competitive and upgrade at their own cost. But it can not be assumed that all ISPs are in that position nor that all consumers are in that position.. Whats important to me is that laws are not made that empower moochers to have the right to unlimited mooching, at the expense of honorable businessmen access providers. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jeromie Reeves jree...@18-30chat.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 3:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] netflix/hulu IP's Why not bandwidth shape them down to something reasonable? I find 1.1~1.2mbit for netflix and it looks fine. they will each 5mbit if you let it. This keeps things pretty manageable here.b On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote: OK, so should we be doing DNS redirecting. Redirect hulu.com to allowvideo.com for $9.95 Shopping Cart item. Alacart content? Its no different than Microsoft Windows XP, being allowed to bundle Iexplorer and MSN with WindowsOS, as long as they included signup links for downloading and subscribing to NetScape and one ro two other Big Internet Providers. As long as its not discriminatory Make sure to include an Allow Item for EVERY Video Provider you can think of Example Welcome to Allow Video.com Shopping Cart. 1. Enable Hulu $9.95 2. Enable NetFlix $9.95 3. Enable GoogleTV $9.95 4. Enable ESPN360 $9.95 (Note... would redirect to third party ISP partnering with your ISP able to deliver an ESPN360 compatible IP or cached data :-) 5. Enable MYISP TV (Note: charge for access to your own Video services that you self host/offer, so its availble accross other ISPs also from this site, and so non-discriminary) Disclaimer: This site/fee allows access to reach the above video provider sites. Access to enter and obtain the site's offered services and content is not covered by this fee. Additional subscription fees may be required directly by the Video content provider. View their sites for their fees, terms and conditions.. So. Comcast my video access provider charges consumers $9.95 for HBO and $9.95 more for Showtime alacart, why cant I as the Internet Access provider charge my subs the same? The problem is NOT charging for content. The problem is not allowing some to buy access to content. The problem is not allowing all to carry or resell the content. The facts are...Verizon and Comcasts wont charge for content, if we are allowed to carry content and we
Re: [WISPA] netflix/hulu IP's
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 11:20, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote: Who's gonna pay for that? Should I have to give up my profits this year, so that it can be re-invested into my network once again, so Hulu and NetFlix can continue to get rich? If you want to keep residential customers in a competitive market, yeah, you're gonna have to ease back on the profit-taking and build out your network. (I noted that you said you primarily serve business customers, so keep in mind that you is the generic ISP, not you personally.) I am sick and tired of this attitude that consumers are entitled and content providers are entitled. They are not entitled to a free ride. Nobody has a free ride in this, though. Netflix/Hulu/whoever is paying TV and movie companies for the right to redistribute content via the Internet, and is paying Akamai/Limelight/whoever for bandwidth to do the actual distribution. The end-user is paying Netflix for access to their collection of movies, and is paying you for Internet connectivity in order to receive bits from the Internet (in this case, bits from Netflix). Sure... I'm perfectly fine with the bandwdith management method of control. Bandwdith limit video web sites to 64kbps, and for $9.95 I'll bump it up to 1mbps. And I'd be fine with charging my customers one penny per bit (or buy a whole byte for only six cents!) but the customers probably wouldn't like that plan very much at all. If your users are okay with this, go right ahead. Whats important to me is that laws are not made that empower moochers to have the right to unlimited mooching, at the expense of honorable businessmen access providers. Who, in this scenario, is mooching? 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] The Big Dog Talks
ATT: Net rules must allow 'paid prioritization' by Declan McCullagh ATT said Tuesday that any Net neutrality plan restricting its ability to engage in paid prioritization of network traffic would be harmful and contrary to the fundamental principles of the Internet. Telecommunications providers need the ability to set different prices for different forms of Internet service, ATT said, adding that it already has hundreds of customers who have paid extra for higher-priority services. Our view is that if the Federal Communications Commission is going to be making policy decisions on this front, it should base them on the facts, as opposed to dogma, an ATT representative told CNET on Tuesday. In a blog post, ATT vice president Hank Hultquist argued that the Internet Engineering Task Force's specifications specifically permit paid prioritization. The flap over paid prioritization started a few weeks ago when Free Press, a pro-regulatory advocacy group, sent letters (No. 1 and No. 2) to the FCC dubbing the concept discriminatory and claiming it will only benefit the few content giants that have deep enough pockets to pay for favorable treatment. In a telephone interview on Tuesday, Free Press research director Derek Turner said that allowing paid prioritization would undercut the entire concept of Net neutrality, which had its previous legal foundation swept away earlier this year when a federal appeals court shot down the FCC's attempt to punish Comcast for temporarily throttling BitTorrent transfers. Since that ruling, liberal interest groups have been lobbying FCC chairman Julius Genachowski for a new set of regulations, while a majority of members of the U.S. Congress has opposed the idea. Google and Verizon responded by announcing their own proposal, which includes a presumption that paid prioritization on wired networks is illegal. A ban on paid prioritization is the DNA of the open Internet, Turner said. He called ATT's arguments a straw man, saying that: What ATT is describing is a practice that we have no problem with, which is that an end user can buy a T1 and set priority flags, and ATT respects those priority flags. Prioritization 'expected' But the designers of the protocols that make up the modern Internet had something a bit more ambitious in mind. In the late 1990s, the Internet Engineering Task Force revised those standards to allow network operators to assign up to 64 different traffic classes, meaning priority levels. Free Press wants to force consumers to be charged higher rates to pay for the construction of more broadband infrastructure than would be needed if networks could be better managed, says Berin Szoka, a senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, which has been critical of new broadband regulations. A July 1999 IETF specification (RFC 2638) discusses paid prioritization by saying: It is expected that premium traffic would be allocated a small percentage of the total network capacity, but that it would be priced much higher. Another specification (RFC 2475) published half a year earlier says that setting different priorities for packets will accommodate heterogeneous application requirements and user expectations and permit differentiated pricing of Internet service. Today that concept of differentiated services is referred to as DiffServ. It's part of quality-of-service technologies that companies like ATT offer, usually to business customers, that rely on DiffServ packet headers to group different types of classes of service together. Real-time voice communication may be ranked the highest, followed by financial transactions, then e-mail, and finally bulk file-transfer protocols that aren't as sensitive to brief slowdowns. It's true that DiffServ markings are typically used inside corporate networks to support applications like VoIP. But a video-conferencing site that has connectivity through ATT could presumably use DiffServ to prioritize its packets over, say, online shopping and BitTorrent transfers--and keep that priority all the way to an ATT home customer. Which is precisely the argument that ATT is making. In a strongly-worded letter (PDF) sent Monday to the FCC, ATT says that the protocol specification in no way limits the use of DiffServ to packets marked by 'end users,' as opposed to content providers or network operators. The (FCC) should view with healthy skepticism the opinions it receives on technical Internet matters from an advocacy group with no demonstrable expertise or operational experience in those matters, ATT's letter says. Paid prioritization over Internet access is not, as Free Press maintains, some lurking future menace that would pervert the intent of the IETF. To the contrary, it was fully contemplated by the IETF. Free Press' Turner disagrees. DiffServ was not designed to be a tool to allow the network provider to drive application-level discrimination, he says. He says that his organization will send a letter to the
Re: [WISPA] UPS with IP
Tom, that $40 SBC should be a old CB3 from the junk pile. We now call them power pingers From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 8:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UPS with IP Its tough to find Low cost DC inverter equipment that supports built-in IP. Triplite makes an excellent line of Inverters, and they are affordable. (come in 12v mailto:1...@v , 24V, and 48V), and can handle high amerage charging and near unlimited load. The problem is that these do NOT support IP type intelligence. There is a physical port that can show some INverter detail, such as when running on battery or not. But this is a physical port that basically send voltage over one of the pins to state the condition. It actually has a remote physical LED block that can plug into that port. IF someone took the time, they could make an adapter to connect that port to a computers or SBC's serial or parallel port and write a small program to read the pin voltage (on or off), and then use the SBC's SNMP or something to enable the power state to be polled. ONe way to get data on power outages is to plug a small $40 SBC bypassing the Batteries directly to the AC, then if that device is no longer pingable, you know no power is there. Anyway, I use the Triplites now, but I as well, am looking for something of similar spec quality that has IP built-in, to simplify and improve remote monitoring. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: David Sovereen mailto:david.sover...@mercury.net To: WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 9:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] UPS with IP With nearly all of our equipment being 24V DC, is anyone running their sites off of batteries connected to an AC battery charger? I'm envisioning something like a solar setup, but instead of using solar panels to charge the batteries, you use an AC-powered battery charger. This would eliminate the AC to DC to AC to DC conversion that a typical UPS setup would introduce, making the efficiency far better and the run-times far longer. I'm thinking I would like to do this (I need to revamp our UPSes everywhere anyway) but am not sure of what pieces and parts I need or if this is a terrible idea that I should run away from. Dave == MERCURY NETWORK CORPORATION David Sovereen 989-837-3790 x 151 On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com wrote: Sadly. My last UPS I built was from parts pulled outta the dumpster behind the local defunct Gold Star Chili Store. Salvaged the EXIT sign. 2 6v batteries and charging/switch board. I live a strange life. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Gerstenberger Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 1:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UPS with IP I second this. We had been using Belkin consumer UPS' because of their physical dimensions, but we've been changing them out for APC 750 and 1500s with SNMP where ever we reasonably can. Get ours new through Ingram Micro. -Paul On Aug 18, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Mark Nash wrote: I usually buy APC SmartUPS 1500KVA, used on ebay with SNMP card AP9617...this card emails you if the UPS goes on battery. Mark Nash UnwiredWest 1702 W. 2nd Ave Suite A Eugene, OR 97402 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax http://www.unwiredwest.com http://www.unwiredwest.com/ - Original Message - From: Steve Barnes To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 1:51 PM Subject: [WISPA] UPS with IP I am looking for a 1500VA ups with IP control that wont kill me with the price. Steve Barnes RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service 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
Re: [WISPA] UPS with IP
You might want to talk to the manufacturers of the charge controller and the power supply about this. One issue that could come up is when the charge controller is charging in bulk (current) mode, the DC power supply will see this as a short and either a) blow a fuse if it doesn't have over-current protection, or b) simply shut off if it has simple over-current protection, or c) supply a set current level if it has advanced over-current protection. Obviously situations a and b would leave you dead in the water, but situation c is a plausible option if you spec the power supply appropriately. Frank Aquino Snappy Internet Telecom Kristian Hoffmann wrote: My thought was to just use an industrial DC power supply to feed the solar inputs on the charge controller. 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] Bandwidth Providers
I am looking for multiple connections to the internet. We currently have ATT Fiber and IPs. We want to look at redundancy in terms of becoming a BGP peer, and purchasing our own IP addresses. The ONLY other provider in our area is Comcast. Has anyone worked with them to do any BGP peering? What really rocked my boat was that I am seeing new ISPs signing up with ATT Opt-E-Man with 100 MB circuits for $2600/mo. That is less than what I am paying for my 50 MB circuit. I called my sales rep and they stated that I could get a 100 MB circuit for $4200/mo and because I am under contract for another year, there is nothing they can do for price...so pretty much they are saying to me that they want new customers, and anyone under contract they can gouge as long as I am under contract... When can we get rid of these monopolies?!?!? Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 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] Bandwidth Providers
I think we spoke once before. You're not too far out from Indianapolis, so you should be able to get IP there at a decent rate. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 9/1/2010 2:41 PM, Eric Rogers wrote: I am looking for multiple connections to the internet. We currently have ATT Fiber and IPs. We want to look at redundancy in terms of becoming a BGP peer, and purchasing our own IP addresses. The ONLY other provider in our area is Comcast. Has anyone worked with them to do any BGP peering? What really rocked my boat was that I am seeing new ISPs signing up with ATT Opt-E-Man with 100 MB circuits for $2600/mo. That is less than what I am paying for my 50 MB circuit. I called my sales rep and they stated that I could get a 100 MB circuit for $4200/mo and because I am under contract for another year, there is nothing they can do for price...so pretty much they are saying to me that they want new customers, and anyone under contract they can gouge as long as I am under contract... When can we get rid of these monopolies?!?!? Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 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] netflix/hulu IP's
On Aug 31, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Also, hosting their servers is not necessarilyl free. For example, the most logicial place to put it might be at one's NOC. That NOC might reside at a Colo. At $50 per U of space, that is a residual cost that you will pay. Obviously depends on your infrastructure. We own 19 sites out of the roughly 28 sites utilized in our network. The others we have long term lease agreements for entire rooms, not just racks. It costs us next to nothing to rack equipment. And how many Us are each of Akamai's 3 servers in the base configuration? Note with 100mb for $150/month in a colo, paying teh reoccuring rack fees would be more expensive than buying an extra 100mb of bandwidth, thus I'd argue even for the ISP there is a minimum usage capacity before it would be cost beneficial the the ISP as well, not just Akamai. Akamai won't even consider an ISP for the Accelerated Network Partner program until there is on average at least 75mbps of traffic flowing between ISP Akamai. At that point I'd say installing Akamai's CDN servers would be of great benefit to the ISP. It would cut down on that transit traffic free up external bandwidth for other applications. 100mbps isn't that cheap for some of us. In fact its about to cost me an additional $750/mo to add that to an existing connection. I'd surely take Akamai's servers over adding more transit any day. Also, the purpose of installing Akamai servers into ones network is to bring content *closer* to users. Buying bandwidth will increase your capacity to the rest of the world but doesn't do much to reduce latency (unless you're already at capacity). Decreased latency is something a customer *will* notice. Adding more bandwidth…not so much. -- Blake Covarrubias WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] netflix/hulu IP's
Just contact Akamai, and give them your AS #, if you are using any amount of bandwidth they will colocate in your facilities (for free), so you can serve much of the Akamai content locally. Do Akamai cache boxes actually cache Netflix video? I presume they cache things like PS3 updates and the like but I would not be so sure about streaming video. Matt 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] Akamai / other caching servers
On Sep 1, 2010, at 5:14 AM, Travis Johnson wrote: Yes, but the bandwidth savings are not worth the headaches (another box or two to maintain, some sites don't like to be cached, customer support calls, web sites blocking a certain IP address because ALL the traffic from your network is coming from the cache server IP, etc.). Its possible to prevent Squid from caching certain sites. Just create an ACL to deny caching them. Still too much to maintain? Deny caching all content by default, then create an ACL which only allows caching of sites you choose. If you don't want your proxy requests sourced from a single IP then use TProxy (http://wiki.squid-cache.org/Features/Tproxy4). With this your proxy can be fully transparent appearing as if the requests were sourced directly from a client instead of your Squid box. Get a Cisco router and redirect traffic to Squid using WCCP. If your Squid box dies the router automatically stops redirecting the traffic, and your users continue to surf the web normally. -- Blake Covarrubias WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] netflix/hulu IP's
Nobody has a free ride in this, though. Netflix/Hulu/whoever is paying TV and movie companies for the right to redistribute content via the Internet, and is paying Akamai/Limelight/whoever for bandwidth to do the actual distribution. The end-user is paying Netflix for access to their collection of movies, and is paying you for Internet connectivity in order to receive bits from the Internet (in this case, bits from Netflix). Sure, That is all true and relevent. BUT... The reality is that Content providers, Consumers, and Regulators are making assumption on other people's (access provider's) business models that they have no right to make. The fact is... Access Providers have provided services and priced services on the over-subscription model since day one, and its no secret to any Internet professional. Content providers are building business models based on network designs that dont yet exist large scale (super high capacity undersubscribed bandwidth), and trying to force new rule upon Access Providers to change to a no or low oversubscription model. And consumers are assuming that they have something that they dont, and that was never promised to them either. That is poor planning on the Content provider and Consumer's part, and they are trying to hold Access Providers responsible for the content provider's poor and unrealistic planning. I am NOT against content providers and consumers encouraging and driving Access Providers to step up the game and offer higher capacities at lower prices, and including more for the same price. That is what Market pressure and competition is all about. What I am against is forcing Access providers to do it. And I'm against the world suggesting Access Providers some how are obligated to, or they are the bad guy. I think its wonderful that Netflix and hulu want to offer consumers good value, and its nice that Money Trees are willing to join forces with these content providers to try serve all of America over night. But what is wrong is assuming that Access Providers, the companies that actually have to build something of distance, should be capable of matching the growth rate to upgrade capacity to all of America overnight. The NetFlix model is flawed. They build a race car without first building a Race Track. Who's gonna be interested in building the race track, if their is no upside offered to the builder of some sort? Facts are... If you want to get to places quicker, you can buy a Ferrari, but it isn't going to solve the problem.. There is still a speed limit, to keep it safe. There is still a HOV lane to keep down congestion, and the one man Ferrari driver still cant use it. And there might be tolls every now and then where needed to help pay for the mainenance of the road. The Road Owners make the rules of the Road. And I'd be fine with charging my customers one penny per bit (or buy a whole byte for only six cents!) but the customers probably wouldn't like that plan very much at all. If your users are okay with this, go right ahead. That demonstrates exactly the problem. My customers would not like that for pay method either. Nobody's customers would today, because they have been let to believe that they are entitled to better. False misleading marketing needs to be stopped, and consumers need to be educated. Customers shouldn;t have a problem with paying for what they use. BUt they do. Why is this? They have no problem paying for their electric, water, Soda, gas, cell phone minutes, or whatever other product based on what they are used. But there is this HUge hippocracy against Access Providers. At the end of the day, this all boils down to what over subscription rate is fair for a Access Provider to deliver, and still advertise their product as a given speed bandwidth. And again, this really is a decission for the Access PRovider that has stats and costs for its own operations, which is confidential information. Sure, I agree, Cable and FIOS are around the corner, and if we (competitive access providers) dont adapt and upgrade, we will be left behind. But... I'll leave with one critical point.. How do we accomplish upgrading and adapting in the faster possible way? With Money, right? How do we get money? We need to raise the funds to make these upgrades sooner than later. I see two low hanging fruit sources to put up this money Consumers that can save money by using our service and Content providers paying their share, now when we still have leverage to encourage them to pony up the cash to fund the upgrades. I know what happens when Docsis3 and FIOS come, and the WISP network is NOT yet upgraded. It means lost customers. I wish I could upgrade everything over night, but I cant, not without money. But the more I charge today, the bigger chance I have to earn more money to re-invest, so I'm in a stronger position to compete when Docsis3 and FIOS come. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL
[WISPA] Katrina, Five Years Later
(from my blog, WirelessCowboys.com) It is now 5 years since Katrina hit New Orleans and changed the face of the Gulf Coast forever. One of the good things that came out of this disaster was the outstanding effort by wireless ISPs that came together to provide Internet and phone services to thousands of refugees from the storm.Mac Dearman stood at the center of that effort. I called Mac the day after Katrina hit to check in on him and see how bad off he had it. Other than a little damage, his network was in good shape. I called a couple of days later, and he told me stories about the refugees of the storm, churches and makeshift shelters filled to overflowing with people that had nothing more than the clothes on the backs. He and his employees had been working non-stop to put in Internet connections and voip phones at the shelters so that the people there would be able to contact their loved ones and start the process of applying for federal help.I could tell from the tone in his voice that he was completely worn out, but could not stop because this work had to be done. I got on a plane the next morning and headed down to help in any way that I could. Within two days after I arrived, there were at least 30 people camped out at Mac's farm near Rayville, Louisiana and semi loads of donated equipment had arrived that allowed us to put Internet, VOIP phones and computers at nearly every shelter in Mac's service area. I had to leave after a week, but Mac took his volunteer army of WISPs down to the Bay St. Louis and Gulfport areas along the coast and kept going until the next spring. It was truly an amazing effort, done with no government support, purely with volunteer help and donated equipment. The campaign to help people after Katrina was a pinnacle moment of the infant WISP industry, and a perfect illustration of the ability of WISPs to provide critical services quickly, efficiently and professionally. Thank you Mac, and thanks to all of the volunteers that were able to take the time to help him out. WISPs everywhere owe you a debt of gratitude. More reading: http://www.redherring.com/Home/15053 http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/10/03/mac.dearman/ Matt Larsen Vistabeam.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] UPS with IP
We are doing this with our old CB3 and RB110 boards. I am actually turning on the 2.4ghz AP mode, so that our techs can get online through them without having to plug into the network. All of our APs are switching to 10mhz channels and the laptops can't just hop on them anymore! Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 9/1/2010 11:44 AM, Chuck Profito wrote: Tom, that $40 SBC should be a old CB3 from the junk pile. We now call them power pingers *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Tom DeReggi *Sent:* Wednesday, September 01, 2010 8:42 AM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] UPS with IP Its tough to find Low cost DC inverter equipment that supports built-in IP. Triplite makes an excellent line of Inverters, and they are affordable. (come in 12v mailto:1...@v, 24V, and 48V), and can handle high amerage charging and near unlimited load. The problem is that these do NOT support IP type intelligence. There is a physical port that can show some INverter detail, such as when running on battery or not. But this is a physical port that basically send voltage over one of the pins to state the condition. It actually has a remote physical LED block that can plug into that port. IF someone took the time, they could make an adapter to connect that port to a computers or SBC's serial or parallel port and write a small program to read the pin voltage (on or off), and then use the SBC's SNMP or something to enable the power state to be polled. ONe way to get data on power outages is to plug a small $40 SBC bypassing the Batteries directly to the AC, then if that device is no longer pingable, you know no power is there. Anyway, I use the Triplites now, but I as well, am looking for something of similar spec quality that has IP built-in, to simplify and improve remote monitoring. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - *From:* David Sovereen mailto:david.sover...@mercury.net *To:* WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Sent:* Wednesday, September 01, 2010 9:51 AM *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] UPS with IP With nearly all of our equipment being 24V DC, is anyone running their sites off of batteries connected to an AC battery charger? I'm envisioning something like a solar setup, but instead of using solar panels to charge the batteries, you use an AC-powered battery charger. This would eliminate the AC to DC to AC to DC conversion that a typical UPS setup would introduce, making the efficiency far better and the run-times far longer. I'm thinking I would like to do this (I need to revamp our UPSes everywhere anyway) but am not sure of what pieces and parts I need or if this is a terrible idea that I should run away from. Dave == MERCURY NETWORK CORPORATION David Sovereen 989-837-3790 x 151 On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com wrote: Sadly. My last UPS I built was from parts pulled outta the dumpster behind the local defunct Gold Star Chili Store. Salvaged the EXIT sign. 2 6v batteries and charging/switch board. I live a strange life. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Gerstenberger Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 1:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UPS with IP I second this. We had been using Belkin consumer UPS' because of their physical dimensions, but we've been changing them out for APC 750 and 1500s with SNMP where ever we reasonably can. Get ours new through Ingram Micro. -Paul On Aug 18, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Mark Nash wrote: I usually buy APC SmartUPS 1500KVA, used on ebay with SNMP card AP9617...this card emails you if the UPS goes on battery. Mark Nash UnwiredWest 1702 W. 2nd Ave Suite A Eugene, OR 97402 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax http://www.unwiredwest.com http://www.unwiredwest.com/ - Original Message - From: Steve Barnes To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 1:51 PM Subject: [WISPA] UPS with IP I am looking for a 1500VA ups with IP control that wont kill me with the price. Steve Barnes RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Providers
We are only 8 miles from Indy, but there are no other CLECs in the central office for Mooresville. So, our options are ATT, or Comcast (because they have coax). Shoot me a call (317) 831-3000 x200 if you have ideas. Eric -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 3:51 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Providers I think we spoke once before. You're not too far out from Indianapolis, so you should be able to get IP there at a decent rate. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 9/1/2010 2:41 PM, Eric Rogers wrote: I am looking for multiple connections to the internet. We currently have ATT Fiber and IPs. We want to look at redundancy in terms of becoming a BGP peer, and purchasing our own IP addresses. The ONLY other provider in our area is Comcast. Has anyone worked with them to do any BGP peering? What really rocked my boat was that I am seeing new ISPs signing up with ATT Opt-E-Man with 100 MB circuits for $2600/mo. That is less than what I am paying for my 50 MB circuit. I called my sales rep and they stated that I could get a 100 MB circuit for $4200/mo and because I am under contract for another year, there is nothing they can do for price...so pretty much they are saying to me that they want new customers, and anyone under contract they can gouge as long as I am under contract... When can we get rid of these monopolies?!?!? Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 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] Bandwidth Providers
Do I dare say we have two (2) 100Mbs circuits for $1500 :)! Of course we were fortunate that we were able to run a wireless backhaul link to a CLEC hotel and thus only have to pay for the data portion since we eliminated the ridiculously cost of the last mile loop charges the ILEC gets. We also are possibly looking at Comcast for a third BGP session, but it is my understanding that they only provide BGP on their Ethernet fiber services...haven't yet confirmed that though. http://business.comcast.com/ethernet/dedicated-internet.aspx On 09/01/2010 03:41 PM, Eric Rogers wrote: I am looking for multiple connections to the internet. We currently have ATT Fiber and IPs. We want to look at redundancy in terms of becoming a BGP peer, and purchasing our own IP addresses. The ONLY other provider in our area is Comcast. Has anyone worked with them to do any BGP peering? What really rocked my boat was that I am seeing new ISPs signing up with ATT Opt-E-Man with 100 MB circuits for $2600/mo. That is less than what I am paying for my 50 MB circuit. I called my sales rep and they stated that I could get a 100 MB circuit for $4200/mo and because I am under contract for another year, there is nothing they can do for price...so pretty much they are saying to me that they want new customers, and anyone under contract they can gouge as long as I am under contract... When can we get rid of these monopolies?!?!? Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 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] Bandwidth Providers
That is Henry Street in Indy. It is the main colo facility where all the carriers are. My company has had rack space at Henry Street since early 2008 in Lifeline Data Center. Lifeline has another new data center further east in Indy. Rick -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 5:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Providers I'll call shortly. It looks like there's a cluster there near 70 and the river I'd look into. http://www.datacentermap.com/usa/indiana/indianapolis/map.html - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 9/1/2010 3:50 PM, Eric Rogers wrote: We are only 8 miles from Indy, but there are no other CLECs in the central office for Mooresville. So, our options are ATT, or Comcast (because they have coax). Shoot me a call (317) 831-3000 x200 if you have ideas. Eric -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 3:51 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Providers I think we spoke once before. You're not too far out from Indianapolis, so you should be able to get IP there at a decent rate. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 9/1/2010 2:41 PM, Eric Rogers wrote: I am looking for multiple connections to the internet. We currently have ATT Fiber and IPs. We want to look at redundancy in terms of becoming a BGP peer, and purchasing our own IP addresses. The ONLY other provider in our area is Comcast. Has anyone worked with them to do any BGP peering? What really rocked my boat was that I am seeing new ISPs signing up with ATT Opt-E-Man with 100 MB circuits for $2600/mo. That is less than what I am paying for my 50 MB circuit. I called my sales rep and they stated that I could get a 100 MB circuit for $4200/mo and because I am under contract for another year, there is nothing they can do for price...so pretty much they are saying to me that they want new customers, and anyone under contract they can gouge as long as I am under contract... When can we get rid of these monopolies?!?!? Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 - --- 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] Bandwidth Providers
Eric,I have been trying for months to get someone at att to sell me fiber that is already in my building,they don't call back or dont know who to have me call!!Can you help?Thanks!Jason --- On Wed, 9/1/10, Rick Harnish rharn...@wispa.org wrote: From: Rick Harnish rharn...@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Providers To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Date: Wednesday, September 1, 2010, 5:47 PM That is Henry Street in Indy. It is the main colo facility where all the carriers are. My company has had rack space at Henry Street since early 2008 in Lifeline Data Center. Lifeline has another new data center further east in Indy. Rick -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 5:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Providers    I'll call shortly. It looks like there's a cluster there near 70 and the river I'd look into. http://www.datacentermap.com/usa/indiana/indianapolis/map.html - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 9/1/2010 3:50 PM, Eric Rogers wrote: We are only 8 miles from Indy, but there are no other CLECs in the central office for Mooresville. So, our options are ATT, or Comcast (because they have coax). Shoot me a call (317) 831-3000 x200 if you have ideas. Eric -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 3:51 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Providers   I think we spoke once before. You're not too far out from Indianapolis, so you should be able to get IP there at a decent rate. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 9/1/2010 2:41 PM, Eric Rogers wrote: I am looking for multiple connections to the internet. We currently have ATT Fiber and IPs. We want to look at redundancy in terms of becoming a BGP peer, and purchasing our own IP addresses. The ONLY other provider in our area is Comcast. Has anyone worked with them to do any BGP peering? What really rocked my boat was that I am seeing new ISPs signing up with ATT Opt-E-Man with 100 MB circuits for $2600/mo. That is less than what I am paying for my 50 MB circuit. I called my sales rep and they stated that I could get a 100 MB circuit for $4200/mo and because I am under contract for another year, there is nothing they can do for price...so pretty much they are saying to me that they want new customers, and anyone under contract they can gouge as long as I am under contract... When can we get rid of these monopolies?!?!? Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 - --- 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] Katrina, Five Years Later
Time for a Camp Shagnasty Five Year Reunion Mike On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.comwrote: (from my blog, WirelessCowboys.com) It is now 5 years since Katrina hit New Orleans and changed the face of the Gulf Coast forever. One of the good things that came out of this disaster was the outstanding effort by wireless ISPs that came together to provide Internet and phone services to thousands of refugees from the storm.Mac Dearman stood at the center of that effort. I called Mac the day after Katrina hit to check in on him and see how bad off he had it. Other than a little damage, his network was in good shape. I called a couple of days later, and he told me stories about the refugees of the storm, churches and makeshift shelters filled to overflowing with people that had nothing more than the clothes on the backs. He and his employees had been working non-stop to put in Internet connections and voip phones at the shelters so that the people there would be able to contact their loved ones and start the process of applying for federal help.I could tell from the tone in his voice that he was completely worn out, but could not stop because this work had to be done. I got on a plane the next morning and headed down to help in any way that I could. Within two days after I arrived, there were at least 30 people camped out at Mac's farm near Rayville, Louisiana and semi loads of donated equipment had arrived that allowed us to put Internet, VOIP phones and computers at nearly every shelter in Mac's service area. I had to leave after a week, but Mac took his volunteer army of WISPs down to the Bay St. Louis and Gulfport areas along the coast and kept going until the next spring. It was truly an amazing effort, done with no government support, purely with volunteer help and donated equipment. The campaign to help people after Katrina was a pinnacle moment of the infant WISP industry, and a perfect illustration of the ability of WISPs to provide critical services quickly, efficiently and professionally. Thank you Mac, and thanks to all of the volunteers that were able to take the time to help him out. WISPs everywhere owe you a debt of gratitude. More reading: http://www.redherring.com/Home/15053 http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/10/03/mac.dearman/ Matt Larsen Vistabeam.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Single radio or multiple radios in the same box?
We never put more than 1 freq card in an enclosure. XR2 + XR5, that's fine, but not two XR2s or two XR5s. --- Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of Learn RouterOS -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 5:44 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Single radio or multiple radios in the same box? I gave up on using two of the same band radios in a single enclosure. Different bands seems to work just fine and no interference issues that way either. marlon - Original Message - From: Jeremie Chism jchi...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 4:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Single radio or multiple radios in the same box? There was a discussion here not to long ago about interference with using two radios in one rb. As I recall there is interference but someone had a solution. I am sure someone will chime in or you could check the archive. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 18, 2010, at 6:42 AM, Paolo Di Francesco paolo.difrance...@teleinform.com wrote: Hi all, in our point-to-point links, we have always used one single radio per routerboard and that worked nicely. Obviously using 2 radios in the same RB (e.g. RB433) is not a bad idea, the cost is lower, but I was wondering if this can lead to some interference considering that the radios could be working on adjacent channels. that's why I would appreciate any suggestion about multiple radios on the same routerboard. Thank you in advance -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Teleinform s.r.l. Sede Legale: Via Francesco Paolo Di Blasi 1, 90144 Palermo Unita' Operativa: Via Regione Siciliana 49, 90046 Monreale (Palermo) Tel: +39-091-6408576, +39-091-6404501 Fax: +39-091-6406200 http://www.wikitel.it http://www.teleinform.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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] Bandwidth Providers
So what you are saying is that YOU shouldn't have to uphold YOUR end of the contract? How does that make sense? Travis Microserv On 9/1/2010 1:41 PM, Eric Rogers wrote: I am looking for multiple connections to the internet. We currently have ATT Fiber and IPs. We want to look at redundancy in terms of becoming a BGP peer, and purchasing our own IP addresses. The ONLY other provider in our area is Comcast. Has anyone worked with them to do any BGP peering? What really rocked my boat was that I am seeing new ISPs signing up with ATT Opt-E-Man with 100 MB circuits for $2600/mo. That is less than what I am paying for my 50 MB circuit. I called my sales rep and they stated that I could get a 100 MB circuit for $4200/mo and because I am under contract for another year, there is nothing they can do for price...so pretty much they are saying to me that they want new customers, and anyone under contract they can gouge as long as I am under contract... When can we get rid of these monopolies?!?!? Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 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] Akamai / other caching servers
Been there, done ALL of that. Not worth the headaches. Bandwidth is CHEAP now... time is still the most valuable thing in this business... I can spend hours messing, tweaking, fighting, adjusting, etc. a cache proxy, or in that same amount of time I can go install a business connection for $500/month and pay for ANY additional bandwidth it may save me. And I can do this every day. :) Travis Microserv On 9/1/2010 2:29 PM, Blake Covarrubias wrote: On Sep 1, 2010, at 5:14 AM, Travis Johnson wrote: Yes, but the bandwidth savings are not worth the headaches (another box or two to maintain, some sites don't like to be cached, customer support calls, web sites blocking a certain IP address because ALL the traffic from your network is coming from the cache server IP, etc.). Its possible to prevent Squid from caching certain sites. Just create an ACL to deny caching them. Still too much to maintain? Deny caching all content by default, then create an ACL which only allows caching of sites you choose. If you don't want your proxy requests sourced from a single IP then use TProxy (http://wiki.squid-cache.org/Features/Tproxy4). With this your proxy can be fully transparent appearing as if the requests were sourced directly from a client instead of your Squid box. Get a Cisco router and redirect traffic to Squid using WCCP. If your Squid box dies the router automatically stops redirecting the traffic, and your users continue to surf the web normally. -- Blake Covarrubias 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] Akamai / other caching servers
I too would love to know that formula. I doubt if it would work in rural Tama County Iowa. Most businesses are agribusiness (i.e. farmers) and I already have most of them in my footprint. My biggest obstacle right now is finding cheap bandwidth. So even a statement that bandwidth is cheap right now does not apply to me. Friendly Regards, Mike _ From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Hogg Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 6:26 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Akamai / other caching servers I wish I had $500/mth business customers to sign up everyday! Regards, Chuck On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote: Been there, done ALL of that. Not worth the headaches. Bandwidth is CHEAP now... time is still the most valuable thing in this business... I can spend hours messing, tweaking, fighting, adjusting, etc. a cache proxy, or in that same amount of time I can go install a business connection for $500/month and pay for ANY additional bandwidth it may save me. And I can do this every day. :) Travis Microserv On 9/1/2010 2:29 PM, Blake Covarrubias wrote: On Sep 1, 2010, at 5:14 AM, Travis Johnson wrote: Yes, but the bandwidth savings are not worth the headaches (another box or two to maintain, some sites don't like to be cached, customer support calls, web sites blocking a certain IP address because ALL the traffic from your network is coming from the cache server IP, etc.). Its possible to prevent Squid from caching certain sites. Just create an ACL to deny caching them. Still too much to maintain? Deny caching all content by default, then create an ACL which only allows caching of sites you choose. If you don't want your proxy requests sourced from a single IP then use TProxy (http://wiki.squid-cache.org/Features/Tproxy4). With this your proxy can be fully transparent appearing as if the requests were sourced directly from a client instead of your Squid box. Get a Cisco router and redirect traffic to Squid using WCCP. If your Squid box dies the router automatically stops redirecting the traffic, and your users continue to surf the web normally. -- Blake Covarrubias 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] Single radio or multiple radios in the same box?
At 9/1/2010 06:53 PM, Dennis Burgess wrote: We never put more than 1 freq card in an enclosure. XR2 + XR5, that's fine, but not two XR2s or two XR5s. Reading the forums, especially the UBNT ones, I got some ideas about what might work. Here's my recollection. Just from the look of them, the UBNT radio cards seem to have more shielding than MTs, but the MTs might have enough. One of the big problems in this case is the pigtails. The stock ones are cheap, leaky coax. One guy routinely puts multiple radios on the same band into one Routerboard, but he either builds his out pigtails out of double-shielded coax, or he uses selected Laird ones. (Some Lairds are better than others, so they need testing.) For $15-20, a real premium-quality pigtail could be a bargain. Not that I know of anyone selling them. There were also reports that the RB433 had problems that didn't show up in the RB600 or RB800. This might be that on the RB433, cards are so close together that they touch, which is bad.. One guy stuck a toothpick between the adjacent cards. The plastic UBNT antennas are somewhat leaky too; best results even with separate radios come from using RF Armor or other shields. BTW I'm doing a design now with outdoor Routerboards, and hope to have multiple cards per box, so hearing about real experience with these or other tricks is alwasy helpful. --- Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of Learn RouterOS -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 5:44 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Single radio or multiple radios in the same box? I gave up on using two of the same band radios in a single enclosure. Different bands seems to work just fine and no interference issues that way either. marlon - Original Message - From: Jeremie Chism jchi...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 4:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Single radio or multiple radios in the same box? There was a discussion here not to long ago about interference with using two radios in one rb. As I recall there is interference but someone had a solution. I am sure someone will chime in or you could check the archive. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Akamai / other caching servers
If you bundle Internet with phone it's actually not that hard to get over 500/month. I have several over 800. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 1, 2010, at 6:34 PM, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote: I too would love to know that formula. I doubt if it would work in rural Tama County Iowa. Most businesses are agribusiness (i.e. farmers) and I already have most of them in my footprint. My biggest obstacle right now is finding cheap bandwidth. So even a statement that bandwidth is cheap right now does not apply to me. Friendly Regards, Mike From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Hogg Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 6:26 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Akamai / other caching servers I wish I had $500/mth business customers to sign up everyday! Regards, Chuck On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote: Been there, done ALL of that. Not worth the headaches. Bandwidth is CHEAP now... time is still the most valuable thing in this business... I can spend hours messing, tweaking, fighting, adjusting, etc. a cache proxy, or in that same amount of time I can go install a business connection for $500/month and pay for ANY additional bandwidth it may save me. And I can do this every day. :) Travis Microserv On 9/1/2010 2:29 PM, Blake Covarrubias wrote: On Sep 1, 2010, at 5:14 AM, Travis Johnson wrote: Yes, but the bandwidth savings are not worth the headaches (another box or two to maintain, some sites don't like to be cached, customer support calls, web sites blocking a certain IP address because ALL the traffic from your network is coming from the cache server IP, etc.). Its possible to prevent Squid from caching certain sites. Just create an ACL to deny caching them. Still too much to maintain? Deny caching all content by default, then create an ACL which only allows caching of sites you choose. If you don't want your proxy requests sourced from a single IP then use TProxy (http://wiki.squid-cache.org/Features/Tproxy4). With this your proxy can be fully transparent appearing as if the requests were sourced directly from a client instead of your Squid box. Get a Cisco router and redirect traffic to Squid using WCCP. If your Squid box dies the router automatically stops redirecting the traffic, and your users continue to surf the web normally. -- Blake Covarrubias 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] Bandwidth Providers
Not so fast... Sure, if the other party wont let you out of a contract, the ethical thing to do is honor it. BUT... its not unethical for the two parties involved to mutually agree to change an agreement for mutual benefit. Most contracts specifically allow that. There are many reasons a party might want to let the other party out of a contract term or renegotiate it. A vendor does not benefit if a Buyer goes out of business. A Vendor does not benefit if a Buyer is locked in for another year at a high rate, if that rate forces the buyer to signup with another provider at a lower rate for the rest of enternity. Its called customer retention. When the market changes sometime contracts need to adapt with the new market conditions. One must also ask what it might cost to inforce a contract, and sometimes taht is more than the revenue that would be discounted by keeping the custoemr happy and retained long term and paying on time. I'm not going to mention any names, but at ISPCON, someone I considered a mentor spoke at a session, and what he learned was So what if there is a contract... Hold out, and convince your vendors why they should work with you on price. While under contract, he was able to get most vendors to lower prices, for mutual benefit. Admittedly, ATT is not like a company that would easily budge on contract terms, expecially in an underserved area where they are a near monopoly, but it doesn't mean that they wont. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson t...@ida.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 7:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Providers So what you are saying is that YOU shouldn't have to uphold YOUR end of the contract? How does that make sense? Travis Microserv On 9/1/2010 1:41 PM, Eric Rogers wrote: I am looking for multiple connections to the internet. We currently have ATT Fiber and IPs. We want to look at redundancy in terms of becoming a BGP peer, and purchasing our own IP addresses. The ONLY other provider in our area is Comcast. Has anyone worked with them to do any BGP peering? What really rocked my boat was that I am seeing new ISPs signing up with ATT Opt-E-Man with 100 MB circuits for $2600/mo. That is less than what I am paying for my 50 MB circuit. I called my sales rep and they stated that I could get a 100 MB circuit for $4200/mo and because I am under contract for another year, there is nothing they can do for price...so pretty much they are saying to me that they want new customers, and anyone under contract they can gouge as long as I am under contract... When can we get rid of these monopolies?!?!? Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 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] Single radio or multiple radios in the same box?
If you could manage to get each radio card in its own Faraday shield you could make it work. You could put multiple router boards and cards in the same box separated by a stainless steel plumber's mesh. You have to take pains to ground the mesh to the box. The problem is de-sense to the receivers from the transmitters. I have built a number of 2.4 repeater type devices with two Deliberant cards in a PAC Wireless pocket antenna. One is connected to the internal antenna, and the other is connected to a short ducky I glue to the inside of the plastic cover at the top. I use them to do site surveys. The main radio connects to the tower, and the second radio creates a hotspot to wirelessly connect to a laptop. I will sometimes set the main radio SSID to any and put the MAC of the second radio in its do not allow list. I keep one of these in my Jeep in case I need to make a quick connection to the Internet from hostile territory. It's amazing how many open access points a 19 dB antenna will find -- even in the small towns I frequent. Friendly Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 6:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Single radio or multiple radios in the same box? At 9/1/2010 06:53 PM, Dennis Burgess wrote: We never put more than 1 freq card in an enclosure. XR2 + XR5, that's fine, but not two XR2s or two XR5s. Reading the forums, especially the UBNT ones, I got some ideas about what might work. Here's my recollection. Just from the look of them, the UBNT radio cards seem to have more shielding than MTs, but the MTs might have enough. One of the big problems in this case is the pigtails. The stock ones are cheap, leaky coax. One guy routinely puts multiple radios on the same band into one Routerboard, but he either builds his out pigtails out of double-shielded coax, or he uses selected Laird ones. (Some Lairds are better than others, so they need testing.) For $15-20, a real premium-quality pigtail could be a bargain. Not that I know of anyone selling them. There were also reports that the RB433 had problems that didn't show up in the RB600 or RB800. This might be that on the RB433, cards are so close together that they touch, which is bad.. One guy stuck a toothpick between the adjacent cards. The plastic UBNT antennas are somewhat leaky too; best results even with separate radios come from using RF Armor or other shields. BTW I'm doing a design now with outdoor Routerboards, and hope to have multiple cards per box, so hearing about real experience with these or other tricks is alwasy helpful. --- Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of Learn RouterOS -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 5:44 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Single radio or multiple radios in the same box? I gave up on using two of the same band radios in a single enclosure. Different bands seems to work just fine and no interference issues that way either. marlon - Original Message - From: Jeremie Chism jchi...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 4:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Single radio or multiple radios in the same box? There was a discussion here not to long ago about interference with using two radios in one rb. As I recall there is interference but someone had a solution. I am sure someone will chime in or you could check the archive. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Providers
I agree...the economy sucks, use it to your advantage. Tell your vendor you're having a hard time paying the current rate and that you need to get the price lowered or you may have to look at closing your doors. You'll be amazed at how many will change their tune regarding contract terms. Another thing to try is that if you can get a lower price you'll reup on the contract for another 3 years...or whatever your current contract period was. Bret On 09/01/2010 08:13 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Not so fast... Sure, if the other party wont let you out of a contract, the ethical thing to do is honor it. BUT... its not unethical for the two parties involved to mutually agree to change an agreement for mutual benefit. Most contracts specifically allow that. There are many reasons a party might want to let the other party out of a contract term or renegotiate it. A vendor does not benefit if a Buyer goes out of business. A Vendor does not benefit if a Buyer is locked in for another year at a high rate, if that rate forces the buyer to signup with another provider at a lower rate for the rest of enternity. Its called customer retention. When the market changes sometime contracts need to adapt with the new market conditions. One must also ask what it might cost to inforce a contract, and sometimes taht is more than the revenue that would be discounted by keeping the custoemr happy and retained long term and paying on time. I'm not going to mention any names, but at ISPCON, someone I considered a mentor spoke at a session, and what he learned was So what if there is a contract... Hold out, and convince your vendors why they should work with you on price. While under contract, he was able to get most vendors to lower prices, for mutual benefit. Admittedly, ATT is not like a company that would easily budge on contract terms, expecially in an underserved area where they are a near monopoly, but it doesn't mean that they wont. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnsont...@ida.net To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 7:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Providers So what you are saying is that YOU shouldn't have to uphold YOUR end of the contract? How does that make sense? Travis Microserv On 9/1/2010 1:41 PM, Eric Rogers wrote: I am looking for multiple connections to the internet. We currently have ATT Fiber and IPs. We want to look at redundancy in terms of becoming a BGP peer, and purchasing our own IP addresses. The ONLY other provider in our area is Comcast. Has anyone worked with them to do any BGP peering? What really rocked my boat was that I am seeing new ISPs signing up with ATT Opt-E-Man with 100 MB circuits for $2600/mo. That is less than what I am paying for my 50 MB circuit. I called my sales rep and they stated that I could get a 100 MB circuit for $4200/mo and because I am under contract for another year, there is nothing they can do for price...so pretty much they are saying to me that they want new customers, and anyone under contract they can gouge as long as I am under contract... When can we get rid of these monopolies?!?!? Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 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] Akamai / other caching servers
I have two OC-3 connections (155Mbps) and one OC-12 connection (620Mbps)... and even at those levels, I still average $50/meg as my hard cost. I am selling 10Mbps x 10Mbps dedicated connections to businesses and schools, etc. for $500/month. Travis Microserv On 9/1/2010 5:34 PM, Mike wrote: I too would love to know that formula. I doubt if it would work in rural Tama County Iowa. Most businesses are agribusiness (i.e. farmers) and I already have most of them in my footprint. My biggest obstacle right now is finding cheap bandwidth. So even a statement that bandwidth is cheap right now does not apply to me. Friendly Regards, Mike *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Chuck Hogg *Sent:* Wednesday, September 01, 2010 6:26 PM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Akamai / other caching servers I wish I had $500/mth business customers to sign up everyday! Regards, Chuck On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net wrote: Been there, done ALL of that. Not worth the headaches. Bandwidth is CHEAP now... time is still the most valuable thing in this business... I can spend hours messing, tweaking, fighting, adjusting, etc. a cache proxy, or in that same amount of time I can go install a business connection for $500/month and pay for ANY additional bandwidth it may save me. And I can do this every day. :) Travis Microserv On 9/1/2010 2:29 PM, Blake Covarrubias wrote: On Sep 1, 2010, at 5:14 AM, Travis Johnson wrote: Yes, but the bandwidth savings are not worth the headaches (another box or two to maintain, some sites don't like to be cached, customer support calls, web sites blocking a certain IP address because ALL the traffic from your network is coming from the cache server IP, etc.). Its possible to prevent Squid from caching certain sites. Just create an ACL to deny caching them. Still too much to maintain? Deny caching all content by default, then create an ACL which only allows caching of sites you choose. If you don't want your proxy requests sourced from a single IP then use TProxy (http://wiki.squid-cache.org/Features/Tproxy4). With this your proxy can be fully transparent appearing as if the requests were sourced directly from a client instead of your Squid box. Get a Cisco router and redirect traffic to Squid using WCCP. If your Squid box dies the router automatically stops redirecting the traffic, and your users continue to surf the web normally. -- Blake Covarrubias WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Providers
You can almost always get the new pricing, if you want to sign a new contract for the same as your existing one. I have done that at least 20 times with Qwest on PRI and T1 lines for customers. The original poster just said they won't give me the new pricing. Sometimes you have to work at it, but as you said, most of the time they are willing to do it if the new contract total value is more than the existing contract value. Travis Microserv On 9/1/2010 6:13 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Not so fast... Sure, if the other party wont let you out of a contract, the ethical thing to do is honor it. BUT... its not unethical for the two parties involved to mutually agree to change an agreement for mutual benefit. Most contracts specifically allow that. There are many reasons a party might want to let the other party out of a contract term or renegotiate it. A vendor does not benefit if a Buyer goes out of business. A Vendor does not benefit if a Buyer is locked in for another year at a high rate, if that rate forces the buyer to signup with another provider at a lower rate for the rest of enternity. Its called customer retention. When the market changes sometime contracts need to adapt with the new market conditions. One must also ask what it might cost to inforce a contract, and sometimes taht is more than the revenue that would be discounted by keeping the custoemr happy and retained long term and paying on time. I'm not going to mention any names, but at ISPCON, someone I considered a mentor spoke at a session, and what he learned was So what if there is a contract... Hold out, and convince your vendors why they should work with you on price. While under contract, he was able to get most vendors to lower prices, for mutual benefit. Admittedly, ATT is not like a company that would easily budge on contract terms, expecially in an underserved area where they are a near monopoly, but it doesn't mean that they wont. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnsont...@ida.net To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 7:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Providers So what you are saying is that YOU shouldn't have to uphold YOUR end of the contract? How does that make sense? Travis Microserv On 9/1/2010 1:41 PM, Eric Rogers wrote: I am looking for multiple connections to the internet. We currently have ATT Fiber and IPs. We want to look at redundancy in terms of becoming a BGP peer, and purchasing our own IP addresses. The ONLY other provider in our area is Comcast. Has anyone worked with them to do any BGP peering? What really rocked my boat was that I am seeing new ISPs signing up with ATT Opt-E-Man with 100 MB circuits for $2600/mo. That is less than what I am paying for my 50 MB circuit. I called my sales rep and they stated that I could get a 100 MB circuit for $4200/mo and because I am under contract for another year, there is nothing they can do for price...so pretty much they are saying to me that they want new customers, and anyone under contract they can gouge as long as I am under contract... When can we get rid of these monopolies?!?!? Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 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] Bandwidth Providers
No no no no What I am saying is that I am willing to re-up the contract (as I have done for the last 6 years) and get current services that they are selling to others. I am fully capable/willing to finish my contract with them. What bothers me is that to Upgrade to more speed, they are selling it to me at nearly double the price as what they are selling it to anyone off the street. Wouldn't you want to reward current customers for being loyal? It is forcing us to look elsewhere for the upgraded speed, which we should be doing anyway. Just the principal that they won't re-negotiate the contract to what they are selling to others. Eric -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 7:08 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Providers So what you are saying is that YOU shouldn't have to uphold YOUR end of the contract? How does that make sense? Travis Microserv On 9/1/2010 1:41 PM, Eric Rogers wrote: I am looking for multiple connections to the internet. We currently have ATT Fiber and IPs. We want to look at redundancy in terms of becoming a BGP peer, and purchasing our own IP addresses. The ONLY other provider in our area is Comcast. Has anyone worked with them to do any BGP peering? What really rocked my boat was that I am seeing new ISPs signing up with ATT Opt-E-Man with 100 MB circuits for $2600/mo. That is less than what I am paying for my 50 MB circuit. I called my sales rep and they stated that I could get a 100 MB circuit for $4200/mo and because I am under contract for another year, there is nothing they can do for price...so pretty much they are saying to me that they want new customers, and anyone under contract they can gouge as long as I am under contract... When can we get rid of these monopolies?!?!? Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 -- -- 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] Bandwidth Providers
And when I say re-negotiate, I mean sign a new contract at the other rate. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Eric Rogers Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 9:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Providers No no no no What I am saying is that I am willing to re-up the contract (as I have done for the last 6 years) and get current services that they are selling to others. I am fully capable/willing to finish my contract with them. What bothers me is that to Upgrade to more speed, they are selling it to me at nearly double the price as what they are selling it to anyone off the street. Wouldn't you want to reward current customers for being loyal? It is forcing us to look elsewhere for the upgraded speed, which we should be doing anyway. Just the principal that they won't re-negotiate the contract to what they are selling to others. Eric -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 7:08 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Providers So what you are saying is that YOU shouldn't have to uphold YOUR end of the contract? How does that make sense? Travis Microserv On 9/1/2010 1:41 PM, Eric Rogers wrote: I am looking for multiple connections to the internet. We currently have ATT Fiber and IPs. We want to look at redundancy in terms of becoming a BGP peer, and purchasing our own IP addresses. The ONLY other provider in our area is Comcast. Has anyone worked with them to do any BGP peering? What really rocked my boat was that I am seeing new ISPs signing up with ATT Opt-E-Man with 100 MB circuits for $2600/mo. That is less than what I am paying for my 50 MB circuit. I called my sales rep and they stated that I could get a 100 MB circuit for $4200/mo and because I am under contract for another year, there is nothing they can do for price...so pretty much they are saying to me that they want new customers, and anyone under contract they can gouge as long as I am under contract... When can we get rid of these monopolies?!?!? Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 -- -- 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] Akamai / other caching servers
If you are selling dedicated 10M service for $500 and 10M cost YOU $500, how do you make money? Or is it really oversubscribed? _ From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 8:05 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Akamai / other caching servers I have two OC-3 connections (155Mbps) and one OC-12 connection (620Mbps)... and even at those levels, I still average $50/meg as my hard cost. I am selling 10Mbps x 10Mbps dedicated connections to businesses and schools, etc. for $500/month. Travis Microserv On 9/1/2010 5:34 PM, Mike wrote: I too would love to know that formula. I doubt if it would work in rural Tama County Iowa. Most businesses are agribusiness (i.e. farmers) and I already have most of them in my footprint. My biggest obstacle right now is finding cheap bandwidth. So even a statement that bandwidth is cheap right now does not apply to me. Friendly Regards, Mike 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] Akamai / other caching servers
You monitor your usage on all the links up to, and including your backbone. If I have 100Meg from my core to a tower, does that mean I can only sell ten 10Meg connections? Not if my usage never goes above 50Mbps or even 80Mbps. I graph and monitor every single link, every port on every switch, etc. and we use that info to know when to upgrade links, etc. Out of five customers with 10Meg connections, only one of them actually bumps up against the 10Meg, and that's only for a couple hours per day. Businesses never use what they think they need... but when they run a speed test, they want to see 10Meg. :) Travis Microserv On 9/1/2010 7:21 PM, Mike wrote: If you are selling dedicated 10M service for $500 and 10M cost YOU $500, how do you make money? Or is it really oversubscribed? *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Travis Johnson *Sent:* Wednesday, September 01, 2010 8:05 PM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Akamai / other caching servers I have two OC-3 connections (155Mbps) and one OC-12 connection (620Mbps)... and even at those levels, I still average $50/meg as my hard cost. I am selling 10Mbps x 10Mbps dedicated connections to businesses and schools, etc. for $500/month. Travis Microserv On 9/1/2010 5:34 PM, Mike wrote: I too would love to know that formula. I doubt if it would work in rural Tama County Iowa. Most businesses are agribusiness (i.e. farmers) and I already have most of them in my footprint. My biggest obstacle right now is finding cheap bandwidth. So even a statement that bandwidth is cheap right now does not apply to me. Friendly Regards, Mike 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] Akamai / other caching servers
I like your strategy. I wish my environment would support such an approach. The chances of several of them demanding the same bandwidth at the same time would be slight unless they all start running Netflix. Do you have an SLA that states the terms? Mike _ From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 8:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Akamai / other caching servers You monitor your usage on all the links up to, and including your backbone. If I have 100Meg from my core to a tower, does that mean I can only sell ten 10Meg connections? Not if my usage never goes above 50Mbps or even 80Mbps. I graph and monitor every single link, every port on every switch, etc. and we use that info to know when to upgrade links, etc. Out of five customers with 10Meg connections, only one of them actually bumps up against the 10Meg, and that's only for a couple hours per day. Businesses never use what they think they need... but when they run a speed test, they want to see 10Meg. :) Travis Microserv On 9/1/2010 7:21 PM, Mike wrote: If you are selling dedicated 10M service for $500 and 10M cost YOU $500, how do you make money? Or is it really oversubscribed? _ From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 8:05 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Akamai / other caching servers I have two OC-3 connections (155Mbps) and one OC-12 connection (620Mbps)... and even at those levels, I still average $50/meg as my hard cost. I am selling 10Mbps x 10Mbps dedicated connections to businesses and schools, etc. for $500/month. Travis Microserv On 9/1/2010 5:34 PM, Mike wrote: I too would love to know that formula. I doubt if it would work in rural Tama County Iowa. Most businesses are agribusiness (i.e. farmers) and I already have most of them in my footprint. My biggest obstacle right now is finding cheap bandwidth. So even a statement that bandwidth is cheap right now does not apply to me. Friendly Regards, Mike 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] Katrina, Five Years Later
I'll second that.Mac, and all the other people who so selflessly put in money and time and pain and sleepless hours and living without showers for days to camping in crowded trailers and trying to get a cell signal and get communication out to get stuff in, for countless hours that'll never be punched on a time clock nor really ever accounted for... Your efforts displayed the finest part of human nature, even when you got tired and ill tempered or so fatigued you couldn't remember what town you were in. Thank you, to one and all. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ From: Matt Larsen - Lists Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 1:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Katrina, Five Years Later (from my blog, WirelessCowboys.com) It is now 5 years since Katrina hit New Orleans and changed the face of the Gulf Coast forever. One of the good things that came out of this disaster was the outstanding effort by wireless ISPs that came together to provide Internet and phone services to thousands of refugees from the storm.Mac Dearman stood at the center of that effort. I called Mac the day after Katrina hit to check in on him and see how bad off he had it. Other than a little damage, his network was in good shape. I called a couple of days later, and he told me stories about the refugees of the storm, churches and makeshift shelters filled to overflowing with people that had nothing more than the clothes on the backs. He and his employees had been working non-stop to put in Internet connections and voip phones at the shelters so that the people there would be able to contact their loved ones and start the process of applying for federal help.I could tell from the tone in his voice that he was completely worn out, but could not stop because this work had to be done. I got on a plane the next morning and headed down to help in any way that I could. Within two days after I arrived, there were at least 30 people camped out at Mac's farm near Rayville, Louisiana and semi loads of donated equipment had arrived that allowed us to put Internet, VOIP phones and computers at nearly every shelter in Mac's service area. I had to leave after a week, but Mac took his volunteer army of WISPs down to the Bay St. Louis and Gulfport areas along the coast and kept going until the next spring. It was truly an amazing effort, done with no government support, purely with volunteer help and donated equipment. The campaign to help people after Katrina was a pinnacle moment of the infant WISP industry, and a perfect illustration of the ability of WISPs to provide critical services quickly, efficiently and professionally. Thank you Mac, and thanks to all of the volunteers that were able to take the time to help him out. WISPs everywhere owe you a debt of gratitude. More reading: http://www.redherring.com/Home/15053 http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/10/03/mac.dearman/ Matt Larsen Vistabeam.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] The Big Dog Talks
I really really do not like that AmeriWreck and SBC ( Same Bad Company ) hide underneath a name like ATT. -- Original Message -- From: Chuck Profito cprof...@cv-access.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:40:45 -0700 ATT: Net rules must allow 'paid prioritization' by Declan McCullagh ATT said Tuesday that any Net neutrality plan restricting its ability to engage in paid prioritization of network traffic would be harmful and contrary to the fundamental principles of the Internet. Telecommunications providers need the ability to set different prices for different forms of Internet service, ATT said, adding that it already has hundreds of customers who have paid extra for higher-priority services. Our view is that if the Federal Communications Commission is going to be making policy decisions on this front, it should base them on the facts, as opposed to dogma, an ATT representative told CNET on Tuesday. In a blog post, ATT vice president Hank Hultquist argued that the Internet Engineering Task Force's specifications specifically permit paid prioritization. The flap over paid prioritization started a few weeks ago when Free Press, a pro-regulatory advocacy group, sent letters (No. 1 and No. 2) to the FCC dubbing the concept discriminatory and claiming it will only benefit the few content giants that have deep enough pockets to pay for favorable treatment. In a telephone interview on Tuesday, Free Press research director Derek Turner said that allowing paid prioritization would undercut the entire concept of Net neutrality, which had its previous legal foundation swept away earlier this year when a federal appeals court shot down the FCC's attempt to punish Comcast for temporarily throttling BitTorrent transfers. Since that ruling, liberal interest groups have been lobbying FCC chairman Julius Genachowski for a new set of regulations, while a majority of members of the U.S. Congress has opposed the idea. Google and Verizon responded by announcing their own proposal, which includes a presumption that paid prioritization on wired networks is illegal. A ban on paid prioritization is the DNA of the open Internet, Turner said. He called ATT's arguments a straw man, saying that: What ATT is describing is a practice that we have no problem with, which is that an end user can buy a T1 and set priority flags, and ATT respects those priority flags. Prioritization 'expected' But the designers of the protocols that make up the modern Internet had something a bit more ambitious in mind. In the late 1990s, the Internet Engineering Task Force revised those standards to allow network operators to assign up to 64 different traffic classes, meaning priority levels. Free Press wants to force consumers to be charged higher rates to pay for the construction of more broadband infrastructure than would be needed if networks could be better managed, says Berin Szoka, a senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, which has been critical of new broadband regulations. A July 1999 IETF specification (RFC 2638) discusses paid prioritization by saying: It is expected that premium traffic would be allocated a small percentage of the total network capacity, but that it would be priced much higher. Another specification (RFC 2475) published half a year earlier says that setting different priorities for packets will accommodate heterogeneous application requirements and user expectations and permit differentiated pricing of Internet service. Today that concept of differentiated services is referred to as DiffServ. It's part of quality-of-service technologies that companies like ATT offer, usually to business customers, that rely on DiffServ packet headers to group different types of classes of service together. Real-time voice communication may be ranked the highest, followed by financial transactions, then e-mail, and finally bulk file-transfer protocols that aren't as sensitive to brief slowdowns. It's true that DiffServ markings are typically used inside corporate networks to support applications like VoIP. But a video-conferencing site that has connectivity through ATT could presumably use DiffServ to prioritize its packets over, say, online shopping and BitTorrent transfers--and keep that priority all the way to an ATT home customer. Which is precisely the argument that ATT is making. In a strongly-worded letter (PDF) sent Monday to the FCC, ATT says that the protocol specification in no way limits the use of DiffServ to packets marked by 'end users,' as opposed to content providers or network operators. The (FCC) should view with healthy skepticism the opinions it receives on technical Internet matters from an advocacy group with no demonstrable expertise or operational experience in those matters, ATT's letter says. Paid prioritization over Internet access is not, as Free Press maintains, some lurking future menace that
[WISPA] Service in Central Texas
I have a customer who needs service in Liberty Hill, TX 78642. If anyone provides service to the area, please hit me up offlist. -- Alan Bryant | Systems Administrator Gtek Computers Wireless, LLC. a...@gtekcommunications.com | www.gtek.biz O 361-777-1400 | F 361-777-1405 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] netflix/hulu IP's
Docsis 3 is here. Fios is not. Even though I can't compete with 50meg and 100meg, I don't yet have to. Many of my customers state that the quality of my Internet is so much better than Comcast. Obviously some people will go to them, but when it goes down and they are told it will be three days or next week before someone comes out they will come back. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 1, 2010, at 3:41 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote: Nobody has a free ride in this, though. Netflix/Hulu/whoever is paying TV and movie companies for the right to redistribute content via the Internet, and is paying Akamai/Limelight/whoever for bandwidth to do the actual distribution. The end-user is paying Netflix for access to their collection of movies, and is paying you for Internet connectivity in order to receive bits from the Internet (in this case, bits from Netflix). Sure, That is all true and relevent. BUT... The reality is that Content providers, Consumers, and Regulators are making assumption on other people's (access provider's) business models that they have no right to make. The fact is... Access Providers have provided services and priced services on the over-subscription model since day one, and its no secret to any Internet professional. Content providers are building business models based on network designs that dont yet exist large scale (super high capacity undersubscribed bandwidth), and trying to force new rule upon Access Providers to change to a no or low oversubscription model. And consumers are assuming that they have something that they dont, and that was never promised to them either. That is poor planning on the Content provider and Consumer's part, and they are trying to hold Access Providers responsible for the content provider's poor and unrealistic planning. I am NOT against content providers and consumers encouraging and driving Access Providers to step up the game and offer higher capacities at lower prices, and including more for the same price. That is what Market pressure and competition is all about. What I am against is forcing Access providers to do it. And I'm against the world suggesting Access Providers some how are obligated to, or they are the bad guy. I think its wonderful that Netflix and hulu want to offer consumers good value, and its nice that Money Trees are willing to join forces with these content providers to try serve all of America over night. But what is wrong is assuming that Access Providers, the companies that actually have to build something of distance, should be capable of matching the growth rate to upgrade capacity to all of America overnight. The NetFlix model is flawed. They build a race car without first building a Race Track. Who's gonna be interested in building the race track, if their is no upside offered to the builder of some sort? Facts are... If you want to get to places quicker, you can buy a Ferrari, but it isn't going to solve the problem.. There is still a speed limit, to keep it safe. There is still a HOV lane to keep down congestion, and the one man Ferrari driver still cant use it. And there might be tolls every now and then where needed to help pay for the mainenance of the road. The Road Owners make the rules of the Road. And I'd be fine with charging my customers one penny per bit (or buy a whole byte for only six cents!) but the customers probably wouldn't like that plan very much at all. If your users are okay with this, go right ahead. That demonstrates exactly the problem. My customers would not like that for pay method either. Nobody's customers would today, because they have been let to believe that they are entitled to better. False misleading marketing needs to be stopped, and consumers need to be educated. Customers shouldn;t have a problem with paying for what they use. BUt they do. Why is this? They have no problem paying for their electric, water, Soda, gas, cell phone minutes, or whatever other product based on what they are used. But there is this HUge hippocracy against Access Providers. At the end of the day, this all boils down to what over subscription rate is fair for a Access Provider to deliver, and still advertise their product as a given speed bandwidth. And again, this really is a decission for the Access PRovider that has stats and costs for its own operations, which is confidential information. Sure, I agree, Cable and FIOS are around the corner, and if we (competitive access providers) dont adapt and upgrade, we will be left behind. But... I'll leave with one critical point.. How do we accomplish upgrading and adapting in the faster possible way? With Money, right? How do we get money? We need to raise the funds to make these upgrades sooner than later. I see two low hanging fruit sources to put up this money Consumers that can save
Re: [WISPA] Akamai / other caching servers
No... we don't do SLA's for anyone. We have been in business for 15 years. Our reputation speaks for itself. :) Travis Microserv On 9/1/2010 7:46 PM, Mike wrote: I like your strategy. I wish my environment would support such an approach. The chances of several of them demanding the same bandwidth at the same time would be slight unless they all start running Netflix. Do you have an SLA that states the terms? Mike *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Travis Johnson *Sent:* Wednesday, September 01, 2010 8:34 PM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Akamai / other caching servers You monitor your usage on all the links up to, and including your backbone. If I have 100Meg from my core to a tower, does that mean I can only sell ten 10Meg connections? Not if my usage never goes above 50Mbps or even 80Mbps. I graph and monitor every single link, every port on every switch, etc. and we use that info to know when to upgrade links, etc. Out of five customers with 10Meg connections, only one of them actually bumps up against the 10Meg, and that's only for a couple hours per day. Businesses never use what they think they need... but when they run a speed test, they want to see 10Meg. :) Travis Microserv On 9/1/2010 7:21 PM, Mike wrote: If you are selling dedicated 10M service for $500 and 10M cost YOU $500, how do you make money? Or is it really oversubscribed? *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Travis Johnson *Sent:* Wednesday, September 01, 2010 8:05 PM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Akamai / other caching servers I have two OC-3 connections (155Mbps) and one OC-12 connection (620Mbps)... and even at those levels, I still average $50/meg as my hard cost. I am selling 10Mbps x 10Mbps dedicated connections to businesses and schools, etc. for $500/month. Travis Microserv On 9/1/2010 5:34 PM, Mike wrote: I too would love to know that formula. I doubt if it would work in rural Tama County Iowa. Most businesses are agribusiness (i.e. farmers) and I already have most of them in my footprint. My biggest obstacle right now is finding cheap bandwidth. So even a statement that bandwidth is cheap right now does not apply to me. Friendly Regards, Mike WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List:wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives:http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] UPS with IP
I have one, has 2 12 volt deep cycle batteries in parallel purchased for cheap from the great Satan, Wal-Mart. Use a small 15 buck maintain charger for each. Tip.. They have a 18 month no pro-rate warranty. Close to 18 months you could accidentally drop it a few times to knock the cells around then you get the bonus.. New battery. Not that I would condone such a thing. But I would. And possibly have. Bob- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of David Sovereen Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 9:52 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UPS with IP With nearly all of our equipment being 24V DC, is anyone running their sites off of batteries connected to an AC battery charger? I'm envisioning something like a solar setup, but instead of using solar panels to charge the batteries, you use an AC-powered battery charger. This would eliminate the AC to DC to AC to DC conversion that a typical UPS setup would introduce, making the efficiency far better and the run-times far longer. I'm thinking I would like to do this (I need to revamp our UPSes everywhere anyway) but am not sure of what pieces and parts I need or if this is a terrible idea that I should run away from. Dave == MERCURY NETWORK CORPORATION David Sovereen 989-837-3790 x 151 On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com wrote: Sadly. My last UPS I built was from parts pulled outta the dumpster behind the local defunct Gold Star Chili Store. Salvaged the EXIT sign. 2 6v batteries and charging/switch board. I live a strange life. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Gerstenberger Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 1:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UPS with IP I second this. We had been using Belkin consumer UPS' because of their physical dimensions, but we've been changing them out for APC 750 and 1500s with SNMP where ever we reasonably can. Get ours new through Ingram Micro. -Paul On Aug 18, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Mark Nash wrote: I usually buy APC SmartUPS 1500KVA, used on ebay with SNMP card AP9617...this card emails you if the UPS goes on battery. Mark Nash UnwiredWest 1702 W. 2nd Ave Suite A Eugene, OR 97402 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax http://www.unwiredwest.com http://www.unwiredwest.com/ - Original Message - From: Steve Barnes To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 1:51 PM Subject: [WISPA] UPS with IP I am looking for a 1500VA ups with IP control that wont kill me with the price. Steve Barnes RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service 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/
