Re: [WISPA] Prevailing Wage
According to the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act, public utilities are exempt from the prevailing wage. Public works does not include work done directly by any public utility company, whether or not done under public supervision or direction, or paid for wholly or in part out of public funds. In theory, you could get set up as a utility and then claim exemption from the act. The downside is that becoming a public utility might introduce more expense/overhead than is avoided by paying the prevailing wage. Also note that you don't have to pay the prevailing wage to anyone that works on the project. Just to those persons who are in the class of workers that are covered by the act: laborers, workers and mechanics. I would argue that administrators, technicians, engineers, etc. are not in that category. I realize that this doesn't help a lot because you probably don't want to be paying your tower climber more than your network administrator. Regards, Larry Yunker Former Illinois WISP Current Ohio Attorney Disclaimer: The foregoing is not to be construed as legal advice but rather a layperson discussion of a business topic. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Stooke Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 12:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Prevailing Wage Hello, We are working on several wireless and security camera proposals for municipalities in our area, Illinois. The question has been raised about Prevailing Wage and if we have to pay it. When looking into it, it looks like we do. All $44/hour to any one that works on the project. I do not want to get people all up in arms about the Prevailing Wage act. That is a discussion we can have at a WISPA show after hours. :) Has anyone had to deal with this? Did you get a for sure answers yes or no? Where you audited and survived? Thanks ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Service contracts
While I can understand the practicalities of enforcing a relatively low-dollar value contract, I would point out that there are two very important reasons to consider having term contracts in place: 1) Banks and other lending institutions like to see proof of future cash flows (receivables) as a basis upon which to lend. Having a few hundred contracts that state that the customer has agreed to continue service with you for the next 12 to 24 months goes a long ways towards establishing your credit worthiness. 2) If you were to consider selling your ISP, the purchasing party would likely place a higher value on your customers if those customers were under a term contract versus being month-to-month with no recourse. Regards, Larry E. Yunker II, Esq. (Former WISP) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jason Hensley Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:57 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service contracts Well, personally we just did away with contracts. They became cumbersome and almost impossible to enforce and the customers were just skipping town without paying anyway. We tout this as a positive to our customers - that even though they have to pay a setup / install fee, we don't lock them into a long-term agreement. Works GREAT for our college customers. Our agreement is one piece of paper, info on both sides. It lays out just the basics of what we're providing, as well as the penalties if they don't return their equipment when they're done with the service, and then references our TOS for more info. Our installer fills it out with their info onsite, shows them the speedtest results, includes that on the sheet, gets customers signature and check (or cash) and they are done. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Don Grossman Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 2:45 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service contracts How do you work that with outside collection agencies when they skip? Our collection agency wants something stating the customer in fact agreed to the terms. Don On Nov 11, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Cameron Crum wrote: Yes...everything electronically. Cameron On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 1:02 PM, jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com wrote: All the other service providers such as DSL and cable are looking to lock people into 2 year contracts as well. add to that cellular, but I don't really consider that a competitor, customers understand the similarities that there is a common need to get into a term agreement to have service. The advantage is that customers aren't hopping around playing musical chairs with service providers for a buck savings when the service providers spend a lot of money on their install. The customers can safely ignore all the misleading flyers they get from the cable company or phone company talking about introductory prices or prices without the fees added, at least till their contract period is winding down. We keep our contract 1 page. I'm sure a lawyer would laugh at it, but the idea is that neither party wants it to end up in lawyer's hands. Referencing the TOS on your website would be a good thing in saving paper. We do 2 year contracts for one price and 1 year for a slightly higher setup price. We track who we give them to, who gave it to them and when. We need that to be able to follow up as sometimes customers don't follow through or expect the service but lose the paperwork. We can email the customer a pdf, the installers have them printed out in the van for customers. We track when we receive them back too; if we receive a contract back and there is a big delay in the install, that is a problem we have to investigate and address. If the customer needs a contract for reference we give them an extra blank one, or offer to mail them a photocopy of the one they signed. 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
Re: [WISPA] Major Disaster
You need to see what is going through your network from that AP. My suggestion is to get a packet sniffer set up between the AP and the Backhaul. You want to narrow the scope of your search with regards to the problem. The the problem could be caused by the type of traffic on your network or caused by the frequency that you are using or is caused by a hardware problem. - Larry Yunker _ From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of ~NGL~ Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 11:05 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Major Disaster I have a tower with all Tranzeo equipment. Backhaul to tower is TR-5plus 5.8 The AP is TR-902 NF with a 180 degree antenna. 50 TR-902-11 as clients All was working well until about 10 days ago when we noticed the speeds were starting to decline. Since then it is a nightmare speeds are usually good 3000Mbps up and 1.2 down] Then during the next 4-5 hour speed decline to about 100k up Speeds remain good and constant thru the backhaul We have done the following: Changed the AP Rewired the tower Replaced the power to the AP Any suggestions as to what problem is. We are a small company and this could break us NGL 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] Major Disaster
It sounds like you are focusing in on a radio problem but you have ignored the possibility of a traffic-related problem. You need to recognize that in a non-polling or a dynamic-polling environment, the upstream traffic from your clients will have an impact on the performance of your network and can quite literally overwhelm the processor on many access points. - Larry Yunker _ From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of ~NGL~ Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 11:56 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Major Disaster We have changed all wiring on the tower. Floor Noise is the same 90-dbm We have changed channels several times From: Justin Wilson mailto:li...@mtin.net Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 8:41 AM To: WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Major Disaster Things I would check: 1.Do you have a customer(s) not at the best modulation rate? One customer could be bringing the whole AP to a crawl, especially when they start pulling traffic. Look at customer re-transmits and see if you see any excessive problems. Make those customers better or turn them off for the benefit of the whole AP. 2.Have you tried changing frequencies. 900 is almost voodoo. Does your noise floor change? Has it changed since 10 days ago? 3.Have you tried changing feed cable as part of the re-wire process? Justin -- Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net http://www.mtin.net/blog - xISP News http://www.twitter.com/j2sw - Follow me on Twitter Wisp Consulting - Tower Climbing - Network Support _ From: ~NGL~ n...@ngl.net Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 08:05:07 -0700 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Major Disaster I have a tower with all Tranzeo equipment. Backhaul to tower is TR-5plus 5.8 The AP is TR-902 NF with a 180 degree antenna. 50 TR-902-11 as clients All was working well until about 10 days ago when we noticed the speeds were starting to decline. Since then it is a nightmare speeds are usually good 3000Mbps up and 1.2 down] Then during the next 4-5 hour speed decline to about 100k up Speeds remain good and constant thru the backhaul We have done the following: Changed the AP Rewired the tower Replaced the power to the AP Any suggestions as to what problem is. We are a small company and this could break us NGL _ 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] legal entity type - was taxes
SELF EMPLOYMENT Schedule SE Section(A) 5. Self-employment tax. If the amount on line 4 is: $106,800 or less, multiply line 4 by 15.3% (.153). Enter the result here and on Form 1040, line 56. You then get to deduct half of your self-employment tax when figuring your adjusted gross income. W2 EMPLOYMENT On your W2 you will find your 2.9% on line 6 Medicare tax withheld and 6.2% on line 4 Social security tax withheld. 2.9 + 6.2 = 9.1% The remaining 6.2% is paid by the employer and is a write off (expense) for the employer. 9.1% + 6.2% = 15.3% As a W2 employee, you don't get to deduct any portion of your social security/medicare tax from adjusted gross income, but your employer gets to claim the 6.2% that it paid. The government collects the same social security and medicare tax either way. There is a slight difference with respect to what entity gets the deduction and how much the deduction applies to. - Larry Yunker -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of David Sovereen Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 1:01 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] legal entity type - was taxes If you are a subcontractor, you pay the entire 15% yourself. Subcontracting does not eliminate or reduce any social security tax obligation. It only alters who pays it. Dave RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: If I understand correctly, social security tax is 15%. In an employment situation, an employee pays 7.5% and the employer matches pays the other 7.5%. If you subcontract, you only pay 7.5% and the corp pays nothing. On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Scottie Arnett sarn...@info-ed.com wrote: The 7.5% comes back in on self-employment tax. That is the social security tax on the self-employed. Scottie But, they're not getting unemployment taxes, and they loose 7.5% on social security taxes... On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Jerry Richardson jrichard...@aircloud.com wrote: Yeah but they get it through self employment taxes. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 8:03 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] legal entity type - was taxes Tom, I wanted to reply to this before I sent my last remarks. Rather than employee, I've been a subcontractor to my corporation since it began. These CPAs say that since I work in the company this is not a good thing because the government doesnt get all its due through payroll taxes. On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:56 AM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote: Same subject, different question: Are you an employee of the corp? Good question. Again that depends. Depends on whether you are making money or investing in money. If you invest cash into a company, it usually makes sense to remove cash by paying back the investment, to avoid being double taxed on your own money, which would occur if you took payroll instead. If you are the sole owner of a S-Corp it becomes more forgiving, because at the end of the day anything you didn't take as salary, would tunnel to your personal income return anyways. But its really about what your tax braket and tax rate is for each entity, and monthly estimated tax payments would be. It about adjusting it so the least amount of tax paid upfront. If you haven't injected investment into the company, and company is making money, and you need money monthly to live, you may have no choice but to take payroll as an employee, so you can take money out when you need it, which is every month. Where as, if you live off another income source, you may not need to be an employee, and just take the income at end of the company tax year. It becomes mor complicated if multiple stock holders, as Employee payroll can be a method of defining fair compensation for time spent, before recognizing company profits. I personally am not an employee of my company, I am a stockholder. It much cleaner that way for my situation. However, I warn caution to others on that. If you anticipate needing credit for anything, so many credit things require proof of current historical monthly income. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 11:04 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] legal entity type - was taxes Same subject, different question: Are you an employee of the corp? On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote: We are an S-corp and have been since the first day we started. It provides personal protection against people suing you, etc. It also allows expenses by the corporation that may or may not be allowed as a sole proprietor (additional office locations, etc.). Again, you would need to check with your accountant. They are the only ones
Re: [WISPA] legal entity type - was taxes
Rick, Your comment regarding owning nothing doesn't take into account the full picture. You have earnings and you will continue to earn money in the future. If you are found liable for a tort or even for a breach of contract as a sole proprietor, not only can the court order you to turn over assets (house, car, and bank accounts), the court can garnish your current and future sources of income to satisfy the judgment. In the end, you get stuck having to file personal bankruptcy to eliminate the judgment/garnishment. While corporate formalities can be a pain they are a necessary evil if you hope to shield yourself from the liabilities that flow from operating a business. If you are simply looking for a pass-through income option, you might consider forming an LLC which enjoys limited liability but works like a partnership for purposes of pass-through income and loss reporting. Regards, Larry Yunker Rick Wrote: I agree which is why I did S-Corp from the start. But then again, I own nothing, so NO risk! Furthermore, I hear that the corporate veil can be pierced if you do the work. Its just disheartening how much crud you have to do to run a business (besides the actual business). Thanks for the input! On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Glenn Kelley gl...@hostmedic.com wrote: Rick Sole Proprietor has its own back of nuttiness. You and everything you own is on the line. I have been there and it is far from fun. In short - you simply don't want someone having an issue and you loosing your home, car - etc over it. Thus the reason after I lost my shirt once - I will never do a sole proprietorship EVER. in my humble opinion - they should be illegal - because many just dont know the difference and assume it has a safety net. Glenn On Jun 7, 2010, at 1:43 PM, RickG wrote: Its tempting to use a known CPA that is versed in our industry but I've had issues dealing with those out of state. With that said, I'm curious as to feedback on another issue. Who here is doing business as a sole proprietor? I've been an S-Corp for years but considering switching back due to its simplicity. This Corp stuff doesnt seem worth all the hassle. Thanks! On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.com wrote: I'm with Travis on this one. Sometimes we take the entire hit at once, other times we spread it out. It kind of depends on what we need for deductions and what the equipment is. Our accountant has taken a lot of time to learn this industry and is really good. The phone number is 509.982.2922 if anyone is looking for a good one. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 11:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] taxes Travis, thanks for your input. I'm really looking for feedback as to what our industry's standard is. I submit that the IRS does not look at it as a personal, business choice. I'd rather do it correctly now than find out from the IRS I'm doing it wrong. On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote: This is a personal, business choice. There is no set answer. Some of our equipment we expense and some we depreciate. It all depends on what tax breaks you need now vs. later. Travis Microserv RickG wrote: Everyone's favorite subject :) I'm getting mixed information form my accountants on this and want to know what everyone else is doing. The basic question is this: Are you expensing or depreciating the equipment? Equipment being radios (AP CPE), antennas, switches, firewalls, etc. With the cost of the electronics being so low, its not making much sense to depreciate. Which takes me to a second question: Have any WISPs been audited by the IRS for this reason? Thanks in advance! -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http
Re: [WISPA] New WISP
I agree that Coding is not equal to Networking. But as I noted... programming IOS or even chucking in routes using command-line on Mikrotik looks like coding. I guess my point was that if you want to start a WISP, be prepared to get your hands dirty. At some point, you are likely to find the need to use a language whether it be IOS, Mikrotik-scripting, Bash, C-Shell, or even Microsoft NT batch language. - Larry -Original Message- From: Josh Luthman [mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 5:33 PM To: leyun...@wispadvantage.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] New WISP Coding != networking :) On 4/27/10, Larry Yunker leyun...@wispadvantage.com wrote: For what it is worth... running a successful WISP will require a certain level of technical expertise and probably a coder. Anyone can throw up a simple access point with a tall antenna and connect it to a LAN, but to grow and reach any sizeable market, you are going to need someone that knows how to configure routing between access points and that will look a lot like coding. Additionally, you will learn that with most solutions, access control, network monitoring and bandwidth management all require some coding. Very few out-of-the-box solutions exist that provide for all of these aspects of WISP operation. Regards, Larry Yunker -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Liam Cummings Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 5:50 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] New WISP Hi all, We are a technologies solutions company located in Cincinnati and trying to become a WISP. We are running into two road blocks. 1 - We need to choose software that doesn't need a coder to operate 2 - Choosing the right access points and other equipment We would love to here your thoughts. Any input would be much appreciated! :-) 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/ -- Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts. --- Winston Churchill 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] New WISP
For what it is worth... running a successful WISP will require a certain level of technical expertise and probably a coder. Anyone can throw up a simple access point with a tall antenna and connect it to a LAN, but to grow and reach any sizeable market, you are going to need someone that knows how to configure routing between access points and that will look a lot like coding. Additionally, you will learn that with most solutions, access control, network monitoring and bandwidth management all require some coding. Very few out-of-the-box solutions exist that provide for all of these aspects of WISP operation. Regards, Larry Yunker -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Liam Cummings Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 5:50 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] New WISP Hi all, We are a technologies solutions company located in Cincinnati and trying to become a WISP. We are running into two road blocks. 1 - We need to choose software that doesn't need a coder to operate 2 - Choosing the right access points and other equipment We would love to here your thoughts. Any input would be much appreciated! :-) 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] how to protect your kids
I have to echo Mike's sentiments on this subject. If a kid is motivated, they will find a way around any technical barrier that you put in place to stop them from posting/texting/sexting/etc. There are public computers, cell-phones, ipod/ipads, thumb drives, and damn near a million ways to get on line. The best method to protect children has been around for years... Teach them respect for themselves and others. Teach them to recognize the difference between right and wrong. Teach them to be leaders not followers. I have two sons ages 9 and 11. One's a WEBELOS (Cub Scout) the other is a TENDERFOOT (Boy Scout). We have three or four planned activities every month and it IS A TIME COMMITMENT! The boys have learned how to camp, how use a knife properly, how to shoot, how to show respect to others, to the flag, to our country, to god, and to family. I used to think Boy Scouts were a thing of the past... but I have renewed respect for the organization. It provides a structure to teach boys many of the life-skills that have been forgotten in this day-and-age and it provides an outlet to allow parents to become involved in the lives of their children. Best of luck to all of you parents, it's not easy but it is rewarding when you can look back on the lives that you helped foster. Regards, Larry Yunker -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 9:41 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] how to protect your kids Marlon asked: So, what do the rest of you do to try to protect or control your kids these days? I taught them respect for others. I taught them to treat the janitor the same as they'd treat the principal. I taught them to befriend the friendless. I taught them honesty and integrity, and demonstrated by example. Tell them regularly you are proud of them. Trust them unless given reason not to trust. Listen. Listen some more. Ask good questions. Show an interest in what they are and what they do. My situation may be different than some other's, but I did some other things. I taught them how to handle guns with safety and to shoot. I taught them early how to drive a vehicle, as soon as they could see over the steering wheel, we took the Jeep out in the sticks and I taught them to drive. Parenting is not easy. Kids don't come with an owner's manual, and unfortunately don't come with an on-off switch. God speed in your parenting. Be careful you don't come down too hard and alienate them. Some such rifts last for years. Be aware that at 13, a kid thinks you are the most stupid person in the world, but at 21 will have an epiphany that you were right all along. Be aware that whoever coined the term terrible twos, never met a 4 year old, OR a 13 year old. 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] how to protect your kids
For what it is worth, it looks like the issue of liability and disclosure of private information is a concern to ISPs as they are faced with parent/child relations. Maybe an effective solution to this matter would be to modify your terms-of-service to indicate that (1) accounts may not be opened by minors - i.e. parental consent is required; (2) accounts for which a parent and/or guardian has authorized use by a minor are subject to monitoring and/or disclosure of any account activity to the authorizing parent and/or guardian. It seems to me that such language would open the door for an ISP to turn over email to the parent upon request or even put a packet sniffer in place and pull passwords for places such as Facebook, MySpace, or Gmail. I know that this all sounds pretty big-brother like and I don't encourage active monitoring of customer activities. It's a fine line we walk between being supportive and being intrusive. - Larry Yunker -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 10:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] how to protect your kids Ok granted I should have seen that response. I meant to phrase is in a business way, i failed. My point is that $corp liability will trump $random.person in most cases. It also was not about running of customers but about the liability of actions. The more mom pop like a company, the more likely they are to assist others (in pretty much all areas). On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:24 AM, Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.com wrote: If YOU came to me about something your kid was doing on MY system *I* would try to help you out as much as I could. But then again, I'm not a mega corp either. To me your kid is more valuable than the money I'd loose by running off a few customers. marlon - Original Message - From: Jeromie Reeves jree...@18-30chat.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 11:48 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] how to protect your kids My soon to be 4 and 7 yo boys have iMacs. They are locked down and just do not know about that stuff yet. I removed access to the web browser in the PSP cause the oldest found it. He does not know how to use it (or so I think). The best parents can do these days is be very proactive which you seam to be trying to do. I do not know the legalities of monitoring a kids device, i leave that up to parents and their lawyers. There are key loggers for pretty much everything out there, VPN's to make sure the data comes back to you first, and so on. Talk to your lawyer. If your child has access to these services from another location then I would assume access from there will or has been used. Find out if so and who owns it, you might be able to access much of that history from there. Also the great way back machine and google cache can often have copies of peoples pages. Talk with your lawyer. If I came to you and said your site had given access to my minor, how would your advisers tell you to respond? Likely to fluff me off as fast as possible to avoid any liability. It could take a simple request from a letter head to get them moving on it, or possibly real threat of legal action. Did I mention, talk to your lawyer. S/He will be the best source of information for correct surveilla^R^R parenting of digital children. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.com wrote: Hi All, Here's the scenario. My kids are expressly forbidden from having email addresses outside my domain. They are forbidden from having myspace, facebook etc. sites. If they want an email, fine by me, but it's one that *I* can check on. If they want a web site, fine by me, but make it a real one that *I* can delete things from. I'm trying to teach them to NOT do or say things on the internet that might bite them in the butt later. The days of people eventually forgetting the stupidity of youth or passion are long gone. Anyway, my 13 year old has a myspace account. He used a hotmail email address to get it. He had permission to use neither of them. I finally found out about the myspace account and went in to check out what he'd been saying. His trash and sent messages had both been erased between when I got the password out of him and when I had time to check on it. (I didn't know that his zune, a video player would ALSO allow him to get on the net and work on his page, talk to his friends etc. deep sigh) So, I contacted myspace, using his account, and asked for all of the deleted information. I explained that I was the father of a minor and that he had no permission to use their site and I wanted to know what was being hidden from me. I gave my full name AND phone number as well as my email address. They were very good about contacting me quickly about this issue. However they flatly refused
Re: [WISPA] Email Hosting
I don't know what Google's ISP solution is, but I decided long ago that google provides me better spam filtering than I can possibly hope to maintain in house. Let's face it, gmail handles such a large volume of email, it can much more accurately identify and filter out junk based on pattern recognition, dead-end boxes, etc. than any independent ISP can hope to find. So, I still use my own email accounts, but they all get filtered through a gmail account (either through aliases or forwarding rules) before I ever pick up my mail. The nice part about this solution is that it enables me to continue to assign common aliases - like sales, service, support, etc., I have personalized email with my own domain name, and if I wanted to, I could still drop in rules in the mail server to trigger automated processes based on email source or content. Using gmail in conjunction with your own email server is the best of both worlds - all the control, but a lot less hassle. - Larry -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Richardson Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 12:18 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Email Hosting We do. We love it, customers love it. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 7:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Email Hosting Josh, Do you use Google's ISP solution? On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: I use Gmail. Don't get those calls. Still get some revenue. On 3/25/10, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com wrote: I dumped email hosting a couple of years ago and haven't looked back. In my situation, I found that over 2 thirds of the subs WERE NOT using the email but were with mostly Yahoo and a few other online services. I found myself having to deal with cleaning out junk mail from stagnant email accounts every few months and dealing with the mail server, backups and all that other stuff that I really had no time for. I kept the users who were on the system, stopped assigning email to the new subs and eventually we had zero mail users and I was done. If someone insists on mail, I'll assign one and charge an extra 5 bucks a month for it and add it to our domain which we now just host with a webhosting company. Simple and cheap. We've all had this discussion before and yes, I know it's cool to have your service name in emails being sent out all over but I really get no advertisement from that unless they are sending the emails local and even with that, the area already knows us. Ah. The joy of not getting the My emails not workin' phone calls. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Steve Barnes Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 6:25 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Email Hosting I know that this has been discussed here last year but I am looking for updates. I am wondering what others are using for email hosting. My current service is low grade at best and I really do not want it brought back in-house. I only have about 500 Subs and 300 emails. Filtering, storage, bandwidth, and backup are all too much of a pain I would just prefer an affordable easy to transfer to service that doesn't kill my budget. I know Google has a service but I have not been able to get anyone to tell me that it is the perfect answer. I would also like a option to be able to give some clients an Exchange type of account, (sync to outlook or Blackberry) for more money and everyone else just a regular pop. Any recommendations? 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/ -- Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts. --- Winston Churchill WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/
Re: [WISPA] making 5ghz link work with more power
I realize that you state that you cannot go with any bigger antennas, but you might be able to fix this situation with the same size antennas if you go with a more focused beam. You state that you are running 24db panels. Panels generally have a pretty wide beam width. If you switch to a parabolic of similar size, you would probably gain at least 3db on each side of the link. - Larry -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 8:49 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] making 5ghz link work with more power Have a 5ghz 1mile backhaul, its near-LOS. I can barley make out the tippy top of the grain leg that the antenna is on. On both sides of link I'm using 24db panels with R52's. Anyway the signal is not that hot, about -73/-74. TCP Throughput on normal 802.11a is 17.5mbps. Turn on Nstream and its around 23.5mbps. I can not go bigger antenna's or higher on either side of link. Believe me if I could I already would have. Was thinking about upgrading each side to an XR5. I'm thinking for another 6-7db improvement over what its at now. Does anyone have any experience with making a link like this work? I need 30mbps with Nstream and possibly switching to Turnbo mode and hoping for 60+mbps. Will amping each end with a pair of RFLINX amps overcome the attenuation and make the link more solid or will this cause problems? Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.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] POE powered POE Splitter with Switch?
A quick google search turned up this: http://www.wirelesslan.gr/product_info.php?cPath=48products_id=1062osCsid= 440557bb417622d46a58ff9007e2a706 POE switching volt to 5V or 6V or 7.5V or 9V or 12V Looks to be 48V in and two outputs of 5V, 6V, 7.5V, 9V, or 12V. It would require a fairly large case at the top side of your tower, but you could run 48V up a single 4 pair ethernet cable to a 3COM NJ200 - then you could run 48V out of the various ports of the NJ200 into these little voltage regulator devices and then run the regulated 12V power out of these devices and into your top side equipment. Theoretically it would work and you would have a network switch topside all running off of a single 4 pair wire. NOTE: I wouldn't do this! I would just run extra pairs to the top. The less equipment topside the better. Too many circuits top-side makes too much climb time. Stuff breaks... I think Murphy's law has some sort of postulate that says stuff at 200ft AGL breaks MORE OFTEN!!! - Larry -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Greg Ihnen Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 12:35 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] POE powered POE Splitter with Switch? Thanks. Those are good but don't quite do it. The specs say the POE is 48v. I'd like something that you could program the POE out to 12v connected devices. Greg On Mar 16, 2010, at 11:01 AM, Mike Delp wrote: 3Com was close with the Network Jack devices. made to fit in a wall outlet, poe, POE out, and 300 version was managed. Only four ports out, but initial testing was pretty cool. It is only 802.3af. nj200 is the 10/100 model, and I just googled it and there is now a nj2000 for Gigabit speeds. Thanks Mike On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Greg Ihnen os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone know of or use a POE powered POE splitter/switch combo which could be tower mounted which would allow a single ethernet cable carrying POE (perferrably 48v) up the tower, and then would pass POE (adjustable voltages) to multiple devices and also act as a switch (preferably managed)? I'm thinking of something that would let a person run a single Ethernet up the tower and then connect multiple POE powered devices. It seems like this is something that would be a big hit. Yes, I Googled it first. Greg 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] here it come$
If you have Time Warner IPs and Time Warner allows you to send EPSN360 traffic down their pipe on those IPs you might be able to use that situation to solve this problem. For example, for a time, I was operating with redundant feeds (two different internet providers) one of which allowed access to a usenet server and the other which did not. I built rules into Mikrotik to NAT all usenet traffic behind one of the IPs that had usenet access. If you have an decent router in the mix and know how to program it AND if ESPN360 emanates from a specific IP range or TCP/UDP port, you could easily build a few NAT'ing rules that would send ESPN360 requests out the Time Warner IPs even for your business subs (of course this will put a load on your Time Warner pipe). Regards, Larry -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 11:25 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] here it come$ As a follow up, I found out why I havent had any ESPN360 requests before now. This request came from a business account that uses my public ip addresses. My residential subs are proxied out and show up on my Time Warner IP. Since Time Warner is on the ESPN list, it works. And I was all excited to switch everyone to my IP addys. Maybe not such a good idea now! -RickG On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:57 PM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: The television content providers are going to bill ISP's? Try using ESPN Live 360 and see what it tells you. -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] here it come$
RANT Gee, now this (ESPN Live 360) won't make the Cable-Op internet providers have an unfair advantage over traditional ISPs! You have to imagine that the cable-op's are negotiating this internet service into their network programming agreements with EPSN, whereas if you are a non-cable-op you will have to pay outright and separate for the service and then pass along that fee to all of your subscribers or more likely... eat the cost. This is another case where a utility is able to abuse its monopoly power to the disadvantage of a non-utility ISP. The regulated and non-regulated portions of a company that engages in internet service need to be forced to conduct business as arms-length transactions. For instance... if MegaCableCompany operates as a Cable TV provider and operates as an internet provider, the Cable TV provider business unit is regulated and enjoys an advantage as a utility, whereas the Internet Provider Business Unit is unregulated and operates in an open market. The Cable TV unit is free to negotiate terms for TV programming from the various networks. The Internet Unit is free to negotiate terms of service for internet related valued-added-services. Whereas, the Cable TV unit should not be permitted to negotiate terms for unrelated internet services. (i.e. ESPN Live 360). The CableTV unit as a utility providing TV service should have no interest in internet valued added services. However, in the alternative... if the Cable TV unit were permitted to negotiate terms for unrelated internet services, it should be prepared to offer those services to the open market at the same rate that it charges its own Internet Service Business Unit!! Of course.. this argument may sound familiar to some of you... I've made this same argument time and time again for the unbundling of network elements within the TelCo monopolies. If you sell phone service as a utility, your associated unregulated ISP business unit should not enjoy preferential pricing with regards to internet transport or internet termination. /RANT Larry Yunker -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 1:57 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] here it come$ The television content providers are going to bill ISP's? Try using ESPN Live 360 and see what it tells you. -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] tower contracts
After reading over the agreement, I see a quite a few items that I would want to address. First and foremost, based on my experience with water tower access as an ISP, I would have to note that 24x7 access needs to be negotiated. If you have to pay for access outside of 8-5 MF then so be it... but your equipment WILL GO DOWN on a Friday night after 5:00 and you will not want to wait until Monday at 8:00AM to get it fixed! Second, also based upon my experience with water tower access as an ISP, I would want provisions with regards to how you will handle tower maintenance (i.e. painting of the tower, discontinued use of the tower, replacement of the tower). You are looking at a month of downtime if the city decides to have their tower painted. The sandblasting/painting crews will not work with you... they will destroy your equipment if it's left on the tower during their work. There is no easy answer to this... We required a village to put up a replacement communications tower BEFORE disassembling a decommissioned water tower but that only worked because the 911 system needed the new tower just as badly as we did! Third, from a legal perspective, I would be careful about certain wording. I see that this document is written as a utility easement. You want to watch out for words that identify you as a utility. In many states, utilities are subject to state or local franchise taxes. The last thing that you want to do is admit to being a utility and then have your local village enact a franchise tax for all wireless internet utilities! Fourth, the contract mentions assignment but does cover transferability or delegation. These issues are important in case you choose to sell your tower rights or choose to discontinue service off of that tower. Likewise, you need to protect against the Village selling off its water tower to a private water company. (It happens... there are a lot of suburbs in Chicago, Illinois that have outsourced their water plant). Fifth, you identify a type of service plan that you intend to provide. That service plan should be subject to a separate SLA (service level agreement). Sixth, I would suggest that you better identify the types of equipment that you can install. You will need NEMA cabinets, cabling, mounting gear, battery backups, maybe even a generator. From what I understand, my former company now has a fiber hut at the base of one of the village water towers. You want to keep as many options open as possible without chasing them away from the deal. Seventh, indemnification generally these liability issues are covered by your INSURANCE. You have insurance, don't you? You had better! You name the tower owner as an additional insured and in the case of a claim, your insurance has to step in and defend you and the additional insured. In fact, I believe that all of the villages that I contracted with required that we provide proof of insurance and a separate binder for the village. Eighth, private holding company you can further limit your liability under the contract by creating a separate legal entity that solely maintains the lease on that tower, but it requires following corporate formalities to a tee if you hope to avoid piercing of the corporate veil. Corporate formalities is a discussion to have with your attorney. I'm sure that there are other issues to be addressed, but that's all I have time to touch on at this point. Regards, Larry E. Yunker II, Esq. Disclaimer: The opinions provided above are not to be considered legal advice. While I am a former WISP and I am currently licensed as an attorney in the state of Ohio, I am not licensed in the state of Kentucky. Therefore, you are advised to seek a legal professional who is licensed in your state and you are warned not to rely upon the commentary as provided above. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 7:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower contracts I dont have any issues with them protecting themselves, my issue is making sure I have protection. Maybe I'm making more out it than I shoudl? Here is the whole agreement: EASEMENT AGREEMENT 1. PARTIES: , hereinafter referred to as Grantor. CITY OF ANYTOWN, hereinafter referred to as Grantee. 2. AFFECTED PROPERTY: Grantor is currently the owner of the following described real property located in the City of Anytown, Kentucky: Anytown Water Tower and its Premises LEGAL DESCRIPTION - TBD Hereinafter referred to as the Property. 3. GRANT OF EASEMENT: For a period of five (5) years from the date of implementation, the Grantor does hereby grant unto the Grantee, a Utility Easement for the Anytown Water Tower and its premises (the Property) for the limited purposes directly associated with providing high-speed, wireless internet service to the surrounding area. 4. TYPE OF EASEMENT: The easement described above shall
Re: [WISPA] Would like to purchase some RF glasses...
Is there anything metal on the roof between the tower and your mount? You might be getting multipath off the roof (if it's metal), metal flashing, a vent pipe, or any number of other objects. Just a theory but by raising or lowering the antenna, you might be changing the angle of incidence and thereby avoiding a multipath bounce. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of John Vogel Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:27 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Would like to purchase some RF glasses... The terrain between the AP and the CPE is such that I would ordinarily consider it a slam-dunk. Standing there on the ground next to the house and looking at the (almost) clear view of the tower, with nothing in between that I would consider to be capable of creating multi-path reflections, my thought is that there is no way for this link to not work. heh... That being said, my experience with multi-path is that you may get wild fluctuations in RSSI, or you may get great signal, but lots of dropped packets. But you still get signal. In this case, at that particular elevation, nothing. Like something is completely blocking the signal, not that you are getting the signal from multiple directions. It's like there is a dead zone from 14.5 feet AGL to about 16 ft. AGL. And that tree isn't very big. The only thing comparable I have experienced is with a wireless security camera that was broadcasting enough signal that the CPE wasn't able to hear the AP, but I know of nothing within 1/2 mile of this house that could be generating any significant amount of signal. John Scott Reed wrote: Or the tree is no longer blocking multi-path interference. Jayson Baker wrote: Multipath interference from the tree. On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:01 PM, John Vogel jvo...@vogent.net wrote: So... I have a customer, been on for a couple of years now. The CPE on their home quit working. I go to check it out, log into the CPE from their computer, everything looks good, except that a scan for AP's shows only the linksys router they have in the house. This is a MT411 with an R52 card in it, with a 14dB panel enclosure. I assume the radio card quit receiving or a bad pigtail, so I go retrieve the unit from the mount, which is about 15 feet AGL (mounted on the facia at the peak of the gabled end of the house). I have my bucket truck parked just below where the unit was mounted, so I am standing just about straight under where the CPE had been when I take it apart to check it out. First thing I notice when disassembling the unit is that the SMA connector was pretty loose, so just for kicks, I tighten it down and boot it up. I have my laptop right there at the back of the truck, so I am powering it off of the truck and can log into it standing right there. I can see the tower my AP's are on, just one lonely tree between me and it, about a half mile away and it doesn't have any leaves on it anymore (the tower is about 3 miles away). I can sometimes pick up the tower directly from my laptop, so this link is a piece of cake, right? So after tightening the SMA connector, and booting up the unit, I pick it up and point it in the general direction of the tower. It links up. -84 to -86 RSSI. So, even though I didn't really think the SMA connector being loose had been the problem, it must have been. So I re-mount the unit up where it had been. Log into it, and... nothing. Scans for AP's show nothing except the linksys. While I am up there, I can see about 80% of the water tower the AP's are on, that one lonely, straggly, leafless little tree is technically denying me LOS, but, this link worked all through the summer just fine, when that one tree had leaves on it. But, no AP's showing in the scan. Maybe I knocked something loose, or there is a problem with the power supply coming from the injector inside the house. So I grab my cable from the truck, and plug it in (powering the unit off the truck now) and try again. Still nothing. So I go back up, get the #...@! thing, and bring it back down to take it apart again. While coming back down, about halfway down I can see the laptop on the back of the truck, and winbox says that the radio (which isn't even pointing at the tower now) is associated to the tower. Go back up, and find that if I hold the radio at the exact elevation I had it mounted at, a scan won't even SEE the AP, much less associate to it. If I raise it about 18 inches, I get an -84, same thing with lowering it 18 inches. I get -84 to -86. Moving side to side, same thing. At the elevation the mount is at, nothing. higher or lower, no problem. BTW, there are actually 3 120 degree sectors on the tower, and under normal circumstances, I can pick up all three of them. Standing on the ground, I get two of them. Where the radio had been mounted, nothing. This isn't a LOS issue, so I start looking
Re: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements
Marlon, Thanks for the kind words. I sometimes (incorrectly) assume that list members know/knew that I used to run an ISP/WISP. Believe me... there are days now when I'm cooped up in the office that I miss being out there climbing towers, hanging antennas, installing routers and looking for the next grain-leg to expand to. Regards, Larry -Original Message- From: Marlon K. Schafer [mailto:o...@odessaoffice.com] Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 12:00 AM To: leyun...@wispadvantage.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements For those that don't know him, Larry is an ex wisp all around good guy. He's now a lawyer but I try hard not to hold that against him. Did I say that I've known him for years and he's a great guy? Litterally one of the founders of the WISP business. marlon - Original Message - From: Larry Yunker leyun...@wispadvantage.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:59 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements Robert, A good partnership agreement / shareholder agreement is a necessity if you are going to take on a partner and make your business venture a success. There are a lot of considerations: How to split profits How to split losses How to elect a board of directors How to make management decisions (usually voting control of the board) How to handle stalemates If the company is in need of money what sort of future contributions will be required and how will those future contributions effect equity Is each partner/shareholder responsible for existing debts/liabilities of the company? Is each partner/shareholder entitled to any sort of salary? (what if the partner gets sick, cannot work, or will not work?) Under what circumstances may a partner/shareholder draw money out of the company? Is a partner entitled to work for the company or can a partner be fired as an employee - if so, does that partner retain his equity in the company? What happens when you want to add new partners? What happens when a partner wants to cash-out? Can a partner sell his interest to just anyone or must 100% of the partners agree to the sale or must the sale be ONLY to existing partners? What happens when a partner dies, gets a divorce, or files bankruptcy? How does the company get valued if a buyout is required? Do you mediate or arbitrate disputes or do you immediately go to court to resolve legal issues? What about competition - can a partner compete? Can an ex-partner compete? Define competition - can a (ex)partner hire away your employees? Can a (ex) partner solicit your customers? For how long after a breakup must an (ex)partner remain out of the field? Is a (ex)partner limited only from providing wireless access services or is he limited from web hosting, web design, computer repair, etc. The list goes on and on. I've handled several partnership/shareholder agreements and with the use of a good template and a good understanding of the WISP business, it's possible to put together a plan to protect yourself and your potential business partners from future disagreements. Trust only goes so far eventually something unforeseen will happen and when it does you want to make sure that you have a document to cover your basis. Regards, Larry Yunker II, Esq. Barkan Robon, Ltd. (419) 897-6500 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:17 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements I've had as few people approach me in the recent past wanting to partner up with me and to be honest, I can really use someone to carry half the load. I'm leery, however of getting screwed. (My father was in business for years with one partner and after they took on another they all got screwed to the point they were out of business) A requirement of a partner, for me, would be someone buying in with enough cash to grow the company to carry the extra weight of the new guy. The ones in the past turned out to be flakes with only dollar signs in their eyes. Not a good fit for me, I'm not about cash in my pocket, that comes with doing a good job and someone talking about money all the time scares the hell out of me. I now have a guy who looks good. Has the assets and interest. Has 3 small towers in parts in his barn, he has a barn converted to an office, construction equipment, trailers, etc. He understands there won't be any money flowing in his pocket for probably a year due to the expansion we're doing. He says that's fine. He also has the billing and general paperwork experience and background. (I absolutely hate dealing with the money and paperwork) Looks good so far. The construction equipment would be a help, no more begging things from farmers and making deals to get a hole
Re: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements
Robert, A good partnership agreement / shareholder agreement is a necessity if you are going to take on a partner and make your business venture a success. There are a lot of considerations: How to split profits How to split losses How to elect a board of directors How to make management decisions (usually voting control of the board) How to handle stalemates If the company is in need of money what sort of future contributions will be required and how will those future contributions effect equity Is each partner/shareholder responsible for existing debts/liabilities of the company? Is each partner/shareholder entitled to any sort of salary? (what if the partner gets sick, cannot work, or will not work?) Under what circumstances may a partner/shareholder draw money out of the company? Is a partner entitled to work for the company or can a partner be fired as an employee - if so, does that partner retain his equity in the company? What happens when you want to add new partners? What happens when a partner wants to cash-out? Can a partner sell his interest to just anyone or must 100% of the partners agree to the sale or must the sale be ONLY to existing partners? What happens when a partner dies, gets a divorce, or files bankruptcy? How does the company get valued if a buyout is required? Do you mediate or arbitrate disputes or do you immediately go to court to resolve legal issues? What about competition - can a partner compete? Can an ex-partner compete? Define competition - can a (ex)partner hire away your employees? Can a (ex) partner solicit your customers? For how long after a breakup must an (ex)partner remain out of the field? Is a (ex)partner limited only from providing wireless access services or is he limited from web hosting, web design, computer repair, etc. The list goes on and on. I've handled several partnership/shareholder agreements and with the use of a good template and a good understanding of the WISP business, it's possible to put together a plan to protect yourself and your potential business partners from future disagreements. Trust only goes so far eventually something unforeseen will happen and when it does you want to make sure that you have a document to cover your basis. Regards, Larry Yunker II, Esq. Barkan Robon, Ltd. (419) 897-6500 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:17 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements I've had as few people approach me in the recent past wanting to partner up with me and to be honest, I can really use someone to carry half the load. I'm leery, however of getting screwed. (My father was in business for years with one partner and after they took on another they all got screwed to the point they were out of business) A requirement of a partner, for me, would be someone buying in with enough cash to grow the company to carry the extra weight of the new guy. The ones in the past turned out to be flakes with only dollar signs in their eyes. Not a good fit for me, I'm not about cash in my pocket, that comes with doing a good job and someone talking about money all the time scares the hell out of me. I now have a guy who looks good. Has the assets and interest. Has 3 small towers in parts in his barn, he has a barn converted to an office, construction equipment, trailers, etc. He understands there won't be any money flowing in his pocket for probably a year due to the expansion we're doing. He says that's fine. He also has the billing and general paperwork experience and background. (I absolutely hate dealing with the money and paperwork) Looks good so far. The construction equipment would be a help, no more begging things from farmers and making deals to get a hole dug. His current gig is as an electrical engineer, travels around the world as a contractor overseeing the repair and programming of robotics as well as the installation of the equipment. He says he's tired of being gone all the time and wants to stay in one area in a field that will be somewhat related and complicated enough that he won't get bored. Hm.. I've been to his home a few times, even put in a private wireless connection between him and his neighbor a mile away. Seems like a decent guy. Now he wants to sit down and work things out on paper. Any advice on things to cover my ass on? Things some of you wished you had down on paper when you started out? I'm not a partner kinda guy, my business plan is always in my head, I make much of it up as I go along and I jump in and just do things myself so this is new territory.(However, my total lack of organization is due to the previously stated operation of the business plan) I know some will yell to not take on a partner and I'd be one of them, believe me. That's why I've fought them off so long. But with a larger network coming
Re: [WISPA] OT: Used Tower Pricing.
After reading this thread, I something gnawed at me... it did not seem correct that a post-dated check would fall outside of the bad check laws. So without doing a lot of research, I would contend that knowingly or intentionally passing post-dated checks on a closed account is most certainly actionable in Ohio. In Ohio a post-dated check is a negotiable instrument just like any other check. The problem is that the time for presentment of the check is the post-dated date, so if you present the check for payment prior to the post-date, you don't have recourse for the breach of the payor's guarantee. See R.C. 1303.13. If you present the check for payment on or after the post-date, then you have recourse for breach of the payor's guarantee. Under R.C. 2913.11, you can file against the payor for passing bad checks. R.C. 2913.11 is held to be applicable to postdated checks. See State v. DeNicola, 163 Ohio St. 140 (1955). The civil remedy for bad checks is the greater of triple the amount of the check or $200.00 plus attorney's fees and administrative/court costs in some cases. Regards, Larry Yunker, Esq. Barkan Robon, Ltd. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:08 PM To: lakel...@gbcx.net; 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Used Tower Pricing. In Ohio, not sure of other states, but if you write a check with a date that is not the date you write it, it becomes an IOU. We had a guy in the area who was writing checks on a closed account and was putting the next month as the date. Had the right day and year but post dated them all for the next month. How could he prove it? He was taken to court and all the stamps on the check from the bank was in the month before the month on the check. Loop hole. He got off and the people with the bum checks have to sue him as a debtor. Good luck on that one! He was smarter than the system. Yes, we have one of the checks. 40 bucks, -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of lakel...@gbcx.net Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:53 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Used Tower Pricing. That will not work. Federal banking laws make it illegal to write any other date other tan the present on a bearer instrument That's an uphill battle. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Ryan Spott rsp...@cspott.com Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:34:13 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Used Tower Pricing. In WA state they are trying to make it a law that no cash leaves the scrapyard. Only checks dated 2 days in the future. Makes it harder to turn a quick buck on metal recycling ryan On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com wrote: It's funny but I bet that happens. Good example of that is stolen man hole covers to be sold at the scrap yard, road signs and on the metal light poles, the little covers at the bottom that cover the electrical access.. They were stolen so much that now they dont even come with them. This sort of thing is why they now require picture ID when you sell your junk at the yard. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marco Coelho Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Used Tower Pricing. Hey someone was on my roof and stole my dish! Get your livestock offa my roof! mc On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote: I have a guy who pays his bill in dish mounts. $2 per mount delivered. We only accept the ones that are clean and reusable. He drops by every couple of weeks with 40-50 of them. Looks like they were removals from Dish/Direct TV. Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 11:36 AM To: sarn...@info-ed.com; 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Used Tower Pricing. Scottie, I've had some minor success by talking to a local metal scrap yard. It's a pretty good sized one, they put up a small sign at the pay window saying that if they get any tower sections to not crush or bend them. If they get a get sections they call and I go over. It's usually old American Tower 8 foot sections, like TV tower, but some are pretty useful. They charge usually 30 cents per pound and I pay a few cents over that for good sections in exchange for the sign next to the pay window. A month or so ago they called and I had to go out to a field to look at some that were too big for the metal collector guy to take into the yard. 2 80 foot
Re: [WISPA] [Indiana] Sales Tax
Without conducting a thorough analysis, I did find a few interesting notes in 47 U.S.C.S. 151: 47 U.S.C.S. § 151 contains a moratorium on taxes generally. However the statute contains a long list of exclusions. For instance, a state may tax if the state was already taxing internet services prior to the enactment Oct. 21, 1998. States that imposed a sales tax on internet service prior to that date can still charge the tax. Likewise, taxes enacted by state statute prior to November of 2003 and imposed upon internet services are grandfathered despite the moratorium. Telecommunications taxes appear to be subject to a loophole and can be imposed (although the statute is silent as to what qualifies as telecommunications). But perhaps most interesting is subsection (e) which allows a state to charge taxes to any internet provider who fails to offer customer (either for a fee or at no charge) screening software that is designed to permit the customer to limit access to material on the Internet that is harmful to minors. All WISPs would be wise to start offering some sort of net nanny type software so that the states dont jump on the opportunity to tax. Regards, Larry Yunker II, Esq. Barkan Robon, Ltd. _ From: indiana-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:indiana-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Steve Barnes Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 11:46 AM To: Indiana WISP Discussion Subject: [Indiana] Sales Tax Here is the info I finally got from the state. Steve Barnes Manager PCS-WIN http://www.pcswin.com/ RC-WiFi http://www.rcwifi.com/ Wireless Internet Service Mr. Barnes: First, I apologize for the delay in responding to your e-mail. With regard to wireless Internet services, Indiana is precluded from taxing such services for sales tax under 47 U.S.C. s. 151 note. (the Internet Tax Freedom Act). Indiana did not enforce sales tax on purely Internet services prior to the enactment of this act; thus, Indiana is now precluded from taxing Internet services until at least 2014. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you, Jeff Raney Legal Division Indiana Department of Revenue --- From: Steve Barnes[SMTP:st...@pcswin.com] Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 3:01:34 PM To: DOR Webmaster Subject: AFSS - Legal Division Auto forwarded by a Rule Your Name: Steve Barnes Email Address: st...@pcswin.com Subject: Legal Division Your Comments: I am a small Wireless Internet Service Provider in Randolph CountyIndiana. I was told that due to this being a Internet Service and nottelephone or other communication that salestax does not need to becollected. I request a WRITTEN OPINION. 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] WISPCON?
Last I had heard, Michael decided that due to the state of the economy, October 2009 was probably not the right time to hold another conference. I know he has interest in scheduling another conference, but the timing must be right to draw sufficient interest demand. Regards, Larry Yunker -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jayson Baker Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] WISPCON? I take it that it's not actually happening OCTOBER 2009 like the site says? 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] just attended broadband stimulus seminar and WOW.....
-Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of David E. Smith Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 12:23 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] just attended broadband stimulus seminar and WOW. Robert West wrote: Why should [big companies] invest their cash in building a market when we can do it for them and once it's about ripe, they can just walk in and pick it? We need to do what we can to protect our little piece of the pie somehow. A small entrepreneur sees an opportunity, builds something that lots of people want, makes some money from it, then a larger company buys it and makes said entrepreneur filthy rich (or at least better-off than he was). The customers win (they get the benefit of the new network regardless of who built it), the guy that just cashed out wins, the bigger company that buys the network wins (they presumably see profit potential or else they wouldn't buy). I thought this sort of sweat-equity-for-cash tradeoff was basically the American dream. I don't see this being a bad thing for anyone involved. David Smith MVN.net REPLY FOLLOWS: You're overlooking the fact that the larger company is unlikely to buy out the small entrepreneur. How many WISPs were bought out when ATT and Verizon started really rolling out DSL? Not many/any? The fact is that the larger corporation will drive the entrepreneur out of business by offering loss-leader teaser rates on their broadband services until the existing entrepreneurs are squeezed out of the market. Why pay value for customers when you can steal them away through unfair competition? That unfortunately is the American reality. For the most part, I see this stimulus money as a subsidy which will enable big players to entrench themselves into new markets with no risk to the big player but a big cost to any existing/competing businesses. With that in mind, WISP need to think of ways that they can tap the government money without losing their local focus. WISPs might seriously want to consider forming cooperatives in which a group of WISPs within a geographic region enter into a joint venture to expand overall capacity. Then that joint venture can apply for stimulus money. - Larry Yunker 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] Need some quick trango help
This might be way off-base I don't know enough about the intricacies of Trango polling to draw any definitive conclusions, but here's a theory: Can customer A's radio see/hear customer B's radio? If customer 'B' is constantly transmitting and customer A is picking up B's transmission, maybe it's just a squelching issue where A can't even get the time-slices necessary to talk to the AP. As for a solution... 1) physically turn customer B's radio so that its main lobe is no longer pointed at the AP but rather so that the radio is pointed as far away from custom A's radio as possible (yet maintain minimal connectivity with the AP). 2) switch customer B's radio (yes customer B... the one that is probably stuck in constant transmit mode). 3) force the transmit db as low as possible on customer B's radio and tweak the RSSI on customer A's radio so that it only hears the AP and hopefully ignores the weak noise being emitted from customer B's radio. Good luck, Larry -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:03 PM To: lakel...@gbcx.net; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Need some quick trango help No. They've been customers for years and years. One of them has a newer radio (replaced last year) though. I think we replaced it due to a dead ethernet port or some such major failure. - Original Message - From: lakel...@gbcx.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 8:53 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Need some quick trango help Is either one of these customers a new customer? I Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry 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] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital Availability
Obviously doing thousands of dollars per day DOES NOT EQUAL making thousands of dollars per day. I had far too many of these self-important ego maniacs day trading on my system a few years back. Ironically, I'd rather have the crazy beanie baby collectors than the day-traders! -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital Availability roflmao I had a guy tell me that he was doing thousands of dollars per day in stock business and needed a rock solid reliable connection. I offered to sell him a t-1. He said he couldn't afford the $500 per month. sheesh Just be honest so I can give you accurate advice! marlon - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 6:26 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital Availability Yup... us too but now it's I had to fold my online Poker hand because my connection went down... I lost $1,000. Travis Microserv Charles Wu wrote: Yep, me too. Right out of the starting gates over 10 years ago, straight with S-Corp. Too much stupid s**t too be sued over by being a service provider. For instance... Oh, your child saw porn? Maybe you should be watching over your child instead of trying to screw me out of every penny I own? Or... there were three companies products that YOU could have bought to protect your children from seeing that! Heh...we used to joke that our ISP was responsible for destroying billions of dollars of value in missed stock trades and market timings =) -Charles 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] Legal Entity - which type? Was: Quesiton on Funding/Financing / Capital Availability
Wow... there is a lot of speculation going on here regarding the best choice of legal entity for organization of a business. The answer is: there is no simple answer. I owned an ISP and now I'm a lawyer. During law school I concentrated a fair amount of my coursework on business planning and business organizations. There was one underlying rule that we were told always to follow: LIMIT THE LIABILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL That being said, does that mean that you want to create a C-Corporation or an S-Corporation? Not necessarily. There are many forms of business that limit the liability of the owners/investors. For instance: you can choose from C-Corps, S-Corps, Limited Liability Company, Limited Liability Partnership, Limited Partnership, and Limited Liability Limited Partnership. Each of these forms has certain liability advantages and certain tax advantages. Some of these forms are available in all states and some are restricted in use and only available in certain states. Additionally, there can be certain advantages to being incorporated under one state's laws versus being incorporated under your home state's laws. The two forms of business organization that make little if any sense for any business in this day and age are: the general partnership and the sole proprietorship. Take this simple example as to WHY you need to not be a general partnership or sole proprietorship: Hypothetical Scenario: You own a Wireless ISP business. You are the sole owner. You are set up as a sole proprietorship. You have one employee who sits at the desk all day long and answers sales calls and does technical support. You do all of the outside work and you always have happy customers. One day you leave from the shop and drive five miles to a customer's site. You are in the middle of installing a tripod on the customer's roof and you realize that you've forgotten your last tube of roofing caulk back at the office. You call your trusty employee and ask them to drive and bring you the tube of caulk. Your employee gets in his personal car and starts to drive out to the site. On the way out, he is negligent and crashes into another car killing the driver and causing permanent injuries to the passenger. You have no insurance on your employees' car and he carries the state minimum in liability insurance. The driver's family sues your employee, your company, your company's insurance and YOU PERSONALLY. The case goes to JURY TRIAL. Your insurance company quickly gets out of the lawsuit because your employee was listed as a desk worker and was outside of the scope of the coverage. The Jury finds that your employee, your company and you personally are liable joint severally for $2,000,000 for the wrongful death of the driver and $1,000,000 for the loss of consortium for the family and $2,000,000 for the hedonic damages for the loss of enjoyment of life for the passenger that was permanently disabled and $2,000,000 for life time medical care of the passenger and $500,000 for future lost wages of the passenger. So, you are in for $7.5MM because your employee crashed his car on the way to drop off a $2.00 tube of caulk!! Now... how would this differ if you were for example a limited liability company (assuming that you followed the organization formalities to make the company a proper legal entity)? The court would still find all the same liability BUT you as an individual owner would not be liable for the negligence of your employee. That means that it is likely that the crash would still bankrupt your company. However, you as an individual could keep your car, your house, your personal investments, cash, stock, pension, etc. and you could avoid a personal bankruptcy. So. this may seem extreme and unlikely, but you need to consider whether it is worth an investment of $1000 or $2000 to shield yourself from the unlimited liability that you face as a general partner or sole proprietor. Regards, Larry Yunker larry.yun...@wispadvantage.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] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital Availability
What you are referring to is called corporate formalities. These same concepts exist with regards to LLC's. For instance: You must have those officers which the state statute requires (usually president and secretary but some states require others), you must make those filings which the state statute requires, you must properly finance the company, you must reasonably insure the company, you must follow appropriate accounting procedures for the company, you must adhere to your own bylaws - articles of organization or other controlling documents, etc. The bottom line is that the more that you do to treat the company as an independent entity the less likely that someone can pierce the corporate veil. The more often that you treat the company like an empty shell or as something owned and controlled solely for your benefit, the more likely it is that a creditor can reach beyond the company and attach to your assets. Yet, I think the most commonly overlooked liability is the dreaded personal guarantee. Until your company has built up sufficient credit history of its own, it is likely that you will be asked to guarantee the liabilities of your company. When you purchase on credit or if you take out a loan, it is quite likely that you will be asked and/or required to sign a personal guarantee regardless of the structure of your company. If you sign such a document, you may be held personally liable for the underlying debt EVEN IF the company is a limited liability entity (such as a LLC or a S-Corp). Be CAREFUL, some of these guarantees allow the creditor to seek payment from YOU FIRST instead of even chasing the company! So, keep in mind that one of the biggest reasons for going with a limited liability entity early-on is NOT to limit your liability to creditors (they probably will reach you through personal guarantees). The reason to go with limited liability from the start is to limit your liability in tort (meaning when you or someone that works for you causes someone else to be hurt). Also remember that torts happen outside of the company AND inside of the company. I'd say at least half of the calls that I'm fielding these days come from people who have recently been laid-off from their employers and now they are suing their employers for some sort of tort. (wrongful discharge, employment discrimination, sexual harassment, etc.) - Larry -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital Availability Apparently, meeting minutes are one of the differences between an LLC Corporation. I do my minutes for the annual meeting. No biggie, but considering changing over to an LLC. -RickG On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 6:06 AM, George Rogato wi...@oregonfast.net wrote: Yeah, my accountant told me a story about one of his un named clients who was previously part of a corp . Turns out there was a lawsuit against a corporation that had filed for bk protection a couple years earlier. The person filing the lawsuit wanted to see the corporate minutes for the now defunct corporation to see if they were done on a regular basis. What they were after is, was it a real corporation that held directors meetings on a regular basis and kept minutes. if not, then the corporation would in fact be considered an illegal corporation and the shareholders would then be considered sole proprietors and the corporations bk would be over turned, leaving them open to that lawsuit. More so than exposing the share holders to that type of liability, the share holders, now sole proprietor or partners would have also filed false tax returns and would be subject to all those unpaid taxes and penalties interest etc. A can of worms indeed, when not done right. Travis Johnson wrote: I understand the corporate structure and how it works. I also know that if you follow all the proper corporate bylaws, they can NOT break the corporate barrier. Yes, they will try and list each person individually, but if you have a good attorney, that is a simple motion to get the individuals removed (been there, done that). Travis Microserv Marlon K. Schafer wrote: It can be done a lot cheaper. But we work hard to do it right not cheap these days. And the corporate veil isn't as strong as it used to be. If your company screws up the officers (that's you) will be named on any suit these days too. marlon - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: WISPA General List Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 9:53 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quesiton on Funding / Financing / Capital Availability Huh? We incorporated in 1997 and I think total cost was less than $500. How do you ever expect to get away from having to do personal guarantees if you don't operate like a real business? Travis Microserv Marlon K.
Re: [WISPA] Karlnet conversion
The answer depends on a number of factors: Are you planning on running MT in 802.11b mode or in NStreme? If you plan to run NStreme, you will need to change out all of your Turbocell client radios and replace with MT clients. If you plan to run 802.11b, you should be able to reuse many if not all of your existing client radios. Check your client license keys... if you have the ability to change from Turbocell to Karlnet SEC, you can simply put up a MT 802.11b access point next to your current turbocell ap and then you can switch your Turbocell clients one-by-one over to Karlnet SEC. Karlnet SEC will connect with any 802.11b compliant access point. NOTE: not all Karlnet license keys will enable switching from Turbocell to Karlnet SEC... some older keys ONLY get you Turbocell, so then you will have to decide whether its worth investing in a new key or dumping the gear and putting in a new client radio. Best of luck, Larry Yunker -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Steve Nedolast Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 8:33 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Karlnet conversion We are wanting to convert a 3 sector Karlnet tower over to a MT based station. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to convert it with the least amount of downtime for my customers. Thanks, Steve Nedolast 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] Rackmount PoE
This one's only 12 port, but the price is hard to beat. http://www.primelec.com/Shop/Control/Product/fp/vpid/3396586/vpcsid/0/SFV/31 734 Regards, Larry Yunker -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 8:00 PM To: WISPA List Subject: [WISPA] Rackmount PoE Does anyone have any recommendations for rackmounted PoE injectors? I was looking at a Panduit PoE injecting 24 port patch panel, but I imagine that'll cost an arm and a leg. I'm not sure how many I'll need, but I'm guessing around 30. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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] Court Injunction
Jerry, As with all good legal questions, the answer is: It Depends. If the HAM operator is INTENTIONALLY interfering with your signal, then you have a very good chance of maintaining a cause of action against him (IMHO). If on the other hand, he was unaware of your signal at the time that he put up his equipment, you have very little chance of maintaining an action. The iffy party is when he falls in between knowing and intentional. If he knew you were out there, but he didn't mean to shut you down, there is an argument both ways as to whether he is liable. I guess the first thing is to determine whether he knew you were operating on the same frequency as the one on which he was planning to deploy. Regards, Larry Yunker Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] DISCLAIMER: The above comments are solely an opinion and should not be construed to be legal advice. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jerry Richardson Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 3:45 PM To: WISPA General List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Motorola Canopy User Group Subject: [WISPA] Court Injunction Is it possible to get an injunction against a HAM if he moved to a 900MHz frequency as is causing interference that would disrupt our ability to do business? I know he has a license and I don't however there must be some precedent that allows for commercial venture versus amateur radio. Any ideas? Jerry Richardson VP Operations 925-260-4119 P Please consider the environment before printing this email 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] More FCC News - Net Neutrality
Yet anither reason us (WISP) and all Cable and DSL(telcos) will go to a usage based systemno more all you can eat. I am not sure, but I bet they (FCC) have no control on us in that circumstance. I would have to disagree. It would appear that in this case, the FCC would be treating an internet provider similar to a cable-tv provider. I think that the FCC could rely on it's holding in Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC to support it's need to interfere with internet provider's freedom to contract. In Turner, the court held that it has an independent interest in preserving a multiplicity of broadcasters. It would seem that it is following that same tenor when it is forcing internet providers to allow equal footing for all services. I personally don't agree with this notion, I think that a greater harm will flow because the number of potential internet providers could be reduced from such drastic measures or in the alternative the cost of internet services could skyrocket due to bit-caps. Larry Yunker Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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] More FCC News - Net Neutrality
I got a water bill last month for $210 and wasn't angry. My bill the month before was only $30 dollars. I knew what 25,000 gallons of water to fill my pool was going to cost me. The problem with that analogy is two fold: (1) you can physically see 25,000 gallons of water that you intentionally put in your pool whereas you cannot see the 25Gigs of data that has been downloaded from your laptop when you download a P2P client and that client software automatically enables sharing. (2) you are presuming that someone INTENTIONALLY CAUSED THE INCREASED USAGE. My wife works for the local village and she frequently takes calls from local citizens who have complaints about their water bills. Most customers who call in to complain, have something broken that caused the excessive water charges. For instance, they might have a toilet that won't stop running. Similar circumstances occur in the internet world when a P2P program automatically shares data with the world OR when a virus evades your computer and spews volumes of data worthless data out to the net. Bottom line.. if you institute bit caps be ready for a barrage of excuses as to why it wasn't your customer's fault and why you need to reset the meter. - Larry 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] More FCC News - Net Neutrality
It looks like the FCC now has the votes necessary to sanction Comcast for its P2P throttling. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080725-hammer-drops-at-last-fcc-oppos es-comcast-p2p-throttling.html It's set to be vote on officially next Friday. This is a disturbing decision if it implies that ISPs will no longer be allowed to control P2P traffic flow originating from their own customers on their own networks. Regards, Larry Yunker Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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] Input Needed - Average number of CPE per WISP ?
Because many WISPs operate as part-time or shoe-string type operations, I would venture to say that the average WISP has less than 1000 CPE deployed. On the other hand, if you were to ask the question in a different manner... perhaps frame the question: Of those WISPs that have at least one employee other than the owner, how many CPE does the average WISP have? Then I think the 1000-2000 CPE range is more accurate. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 10:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List; Motorola Canopy User Group Subject: [WISPA] Input Needed - Average number of CPE per WISP ? Guys and Gals, To help prepare for a planned FCC trip, I would appreciate your input on the following question. In your opinion, what is the average number of CPEs deployed per independent WISP? I'm not looking for the number of CPEs that YOU have deployed unless you believe that your number is exactly the average of all independent WISPs. I'm looking for the number that you believe the average independent WISP has deployed. By independent WISP I'm not referring to large national carriers, I'm referring to the typical type of WISP operation that you are familiar with. I figure if I can get 30 responses then I'll have good data. I don't want to flood the lists with 500 responses so after about 25 or 30 replies, I should have all the data I need. I guess what I'm saying is that the time to live for this thread may be as short as 8 hours. Thanks in advance for your help. Respectfully, jack (WISPA FCC Committee Chair) -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Cisco Press Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs Vendor-Neutral Wireless Design-Training-Troubleshooting-Consulting FCC License # PG-12-25133 Profile http://www.linkedin.com/in/jackunger Phone 818-227-4220 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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] Just what we need.
While the ILECs may have been unable to directly pass along the cost of their broadband infrastructure to the consumer, they have successful engaged in a reverse of the concept. They have placed the burden of their dying POTS infrastructure on their broadband subscribers. ILECS have instituted tying agreements which essentially force broadband subscribers into purchasing tariffed services. For example, if you want $19.95/month DSL, you must-purchase the ILEC's $62/month all frills included phone service package. Of course, someone will cry out what about naked-DSL? Yes, it exists in most markets now, but it will cost you roughly $50-$55/month for the same plan that you would get for $19.95/month if you were so kind as to agree to subsidize ma-Bell's poor starving land-line phone service. Seems ironic doesn't it... the ILEC can't force its telephone subscribers to pay for its broadband expansion through tariffed rates (it wouldn't work because most people would get cell phones and ditch the land line before they would agree to pay a bunch more for their land line), so ILECs work the system backwards... people still want DSL, so lets force them to buy our next-to-useless landline phone service in order to get our coveted broadband service. Unfortunately, I don't see people cutting their electric company service and installing solar cells as a replacements anytime soon, so if the electric company were to engage in broadband as suggested, it would be scary for all other broadband carriers. - Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 10:53 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. Not true. Not true at all. Cable Companies are not rate of return regulated. Every dollar they spend is below the line. The ILECS are strictly regulated as to what can be spent above the line. Tarrifed rates ONLY support tarrifed services. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. Why not? Isn't that kinda what Cable Cos and ILECs Do? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 2:37 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. The power company wants to take rate payer money and build a broadband network that will contact each meter for the purpose of managing energy. It will also supply broadband to the homeowner if they want. This should not be allowed. - Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:34 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just what we need. Chuck McCown wrote: Time to speak up. Anyone care to translate this for those among us who don't speak lawyerese, and who don't live/work in Indiana? David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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:
Re: [WISPA] Fwd: Dateline NBC Special on TowerDogs
according to figures cited by OSHA, these so-called tower dogs have the highest death rate per capita of any occupation in the country OUCH!!! I can just feel the impact on worker's compensation classification ratings already! 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] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking
Looks like the FCC make take some action in enforcing its Net Neutrality Policies See: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2325396,00.asp Depending on the scope of their ruling, this could have a significant impact on how WISPs can control traffic on their own networks. Larry Yunker Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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] DNS help
I'd check your DNS cache. There is a good chance that your DNS server failed to resolve etsy.com at some point and then cached that bad result. - Larry - _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 12:09 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DNS help Ok... I am open for more ideas. I am still unable to resolve www.etsy.com, but I am able to ping and traceroute from my DNS servers to their IP addresses. This is the ONLY domain I am having problems with... no other issues, no other support calls... just this single domain? Travis Microserv Ryan Langseth wrote: just noticed a typo in my query, but the result is still the same: ryan-langseths-ibook-g4:~ ryanl$ host google.com. ns1.etsy.com Using domain server: Name: ns1.etsy.com Address: 38.106.64.5#53 Aliases: Host google.com not found: 5(REFUSED) On Jun 28, 2008, at 8:32 AM, Ryan Langseth wrote: That does not mean they are having issues, just that they do not support recursive lookups (considered a security issue in most cases). ryan-langseths-ibook-g4:~ ryanl$ host google.com ns1.etsy.com Using domain server: Name: ns1.etsy.com Address: 38.106.64.5#53 Aliases: Host google.com.admintool.org not found: 5(REFUSED) ryan-langseths-ibook-g4:~ ryanl$ host www.etsy.com ns1.etsy.com Using domain server: Name: ns1.etsy.com Address: 38.106.64.5#53 Aliases: www.etsy.com has address 72.37.157.20 Ryan On Jun 28, 2008, at 12:07 AM, Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, After getting some help from Ryan Spott, it appears ETSY.COM's DNS servers are having issues. By using their DNS servers and trying to do nslookups, every single domain fails with REFUSED. Travis Microserv Ryan Langseth wrote: Are the server *NIX servers? try running host etsy.com 38.106.64.5 from your DNS servers to make sure you are getting connectivity to their DNS servers on 53 your output should be similar to : ns1:/var/log# host etsy.com 38.106.64.5 Using domain server: Name: 38.106.64.5 Address: 38.106.64.5#53 Aliases: etsy.com has address 72.37.157.20 etsy.com mail is handled by 10 mxin.mxes.net. If you are using bind, you may have a cached query that returned a bad value, you can run rndc flush to clear your cached queries. Ryan On Jun 27, 2008, at 11:29 PM, Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, We are currently having a DNS issue with etsy.com. We are able to ping and traceroute to their nameservers and webservers, but we are unable to resolve their IP info using our DNS servers. Therefore, we have users calling us that they can't access the website. Any ideas on where I could start troubleshooting this? Our DNS guru is gone for a week. :( Travis Microserv WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/
Re: [WISPA] CCIE Wireless
How much of a share in the WISP market does Cisco hold? It seems to me that a Cisco specific exam would do little to prove one's worth in the WISP market. Besides, at least half of the work in implementing a good wireless solution comes in at the routing level rather than the physical level. - Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rogelio Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 1:04 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] CCIE Wireless I see that there might be a CCIE wireless on the horizon http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/06/22/wireless-ccie-unofficialy-anno unced/ Lemme guess, everyone here is going to go take the beta tests to see what they're made of, right? 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] current market
Tom, Very well said. Talking about WISPs as if they were a commodity with one predefined multiple is very presumptuous. While there may be some speculators that are willing to purchase WISPs on a preset multiple, it's much more likely that a WISP will be dealing with a learned investor who wants to see a return based on performance. Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 4:04 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] current market Travis, You are asking a flawed question. From what I've learned over the years, buyers don't buy WISPs, they buy guaranteed mechanisms for either proven revenue streams and/or potential expansion of revenue streams, and/or ability to sustain such revenues. A seller obviously wants to prove the second, to maximize their sale price. I have seen all to often, where a WISP can't successfully sell their WISP, and it ends up getting shut down, or sold for less than the liquidation value of the hardware installed, as little as 10% of the equipemnt's new purchase cost. And I've seen a few cases where offers have come in to WISPs, as high as 6X annual revenues. The golden questions to ask are Is the business sellable? Is it maintainable by a third party, as is? Is it self sustaining already, from a profitabilty point, if it were taken over? The sell price of a business is not aways based on its value to the buyer, but also by the cost to operate (burn rate) of the original owner, and their desperateness to get out of the business. To answer your question, you have to first define specifics about the situation, and wether the seller is in the position to get a fair offer. If one assumes both the buyer's and seller's company are equal, and successful businesses, then one can make a generalized starting point for market sell cost. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 7:18 PM Subject: [WISPA] current market Hi, I know there is no exact number for the buy/sell of a WISP... however, there is usually a starting point... and it seems to fluctuate as the market changes. So, what is the current starting point for the purchase of a small WISP? 6x monthly revenue? 9x? 12x? thanks, Travis Microserv 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] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted
SOAP might provide a nice solution, but I can think of three potential problems with using SOAP: 1) It would require me to learn a new language... I know VERY little about SOAP and almost as little about XML (unfortunately learning new languages isn't in my schedule for the next month or so). 2) Using SOAP presumes that the ISP has a server which is running or is capable of installing a SOAP engine. 3) Using SOAP would require that I develop a platform independent backend server process to handle the inbound and outbound SOAP messages. I'd be interested to hear how many ISPs currently use SOAP and of those that don't how many would be willing/wanting to install a SOAP engine for purposes of server side message processing. - Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ryan Langseth Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 7:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted How about a SOAP interface rather than email? That would be a decent way to distribute custom updates, config options and send the results. Ryan Larry Yunker wrote: Just a quick note: I posted a new release of the Internet Monitor software today. (v. 1.0.0.17) It's available at http://www.wispadvantage.com/html/custom_software.html I addressed a few bugs and improved the stability of the speed test features in this release. I also made significant changes to the email-report mechanism. It now generates a nice XML file when sending the test results back to the ISP. I'm getting close to having an automated method for checking-for and downloading-updates, but without more testing, I'm not ready to deploy that code quite yet. Hopefully I'll have it within the next week. Regards, Larry Yunker Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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/ -- Ryan Langseth System Administrator InvisiMax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 218.745.6030 Cell: 701.739.1577 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] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted
Two questions: 1) How many network interfaces do you have running on your Vista and your XP Pro machines respectively 2) What does the software display for the default gateway and Subnet mask? Thanks, Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 8:56 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted When run on Vista, it does not pick up the default gateway and under Vista and XP Pro it does not pickup the Subnet mask. Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Yunker Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 4:03 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted Just a quick note: I posted a new release of the Internet Monitor software today. (v. 1.0.0.17) It's available at http://www.wispadvantage.com/html/custom_software.html I addressed a few bugs and improved the stability of the speed test features in this release. I also made significant changes to the email-report mechanism. It now generates a nice XML file when sending the test results back to the ISP. I'm getting close to having an automated method for checking-for and downloading-updates, but without more testing, I'm not ready to deploy that code quite yet. Hopefully I'll have it within the next week. Regards, Larry Yunker Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted
On the Vista machine is it correctly displaying the IP address which is bound to the adapter that connects to the internet? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 9:48 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted The Vista machine has two physical, Wireless and wired, XP just one. On both the sm is 0.0.0.0 and on Vista the gateway shows the same. Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Yunker Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 8:32 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted Two questions: 1) How many network interfaces do you have running on your Vista and your XP Pro machines respectively 2) What does the software display for the default gateway and Subnet mask? Thanks, Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 8:56 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted When run on Vista, it does not pick up the default gateway and under Vista and XP Pro it does not pickup the Subnet mask. Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Yunker Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 4:03 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted Just a quick note: I posted a new release of the Internet Monitor software today. (v. 1.0.0.17) It's available at http://www.wispadvantage.com/html/custom_software.html I addressed a few bugs and improved the stability of the speed test features in this release. I also made significant changes to the email-report mechanism. It now generates a nice XML file when sending the test results back to the ISP. I'm getting close to having an automated method for checking-for and downloading-updates, but without more testing, I'm not ready to deploy that code quite yet. Hopefully I'll have it within the next week. Regards, Larry Yunker Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted
1) Your web server needs to know what to do with php types (meaning php must be installed) 2) $uploadDir = '/www/uploadtest'; should be changed to reflect an actual directory on your server in which the upload.php script resides. One hint.. in my environment, this path is provided relative to the root directory of my change-rooted web hosting account. So /www is actually one level BELOW the root level of the web server. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 10:09 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted I am also curious what needs to be done to the upload.php to make it work? Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Yunker Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 8:53 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted On the Vista machine is it correctly displaying the IP address which is bound to the adapter that connects to the internet? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 9:48 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted The Vista machine has two physical, Wireless and wired, XP just one. On both the sm is 0.0.0.0 and on Vista the gateway shows the same. Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Yunker Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 8:32 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted Two questions: 1) How many network interfaces do you have running on your Vista and your XP Pro machines respectively 2) What does the software display for the default gateway and Subnet mask? Thanks, Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 8:56 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted When run on Vista, it does not pick up the default gateway and under Vista and XP Pro it does not pickup the Subnet mask. Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Yunker Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 4:03 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted Just a quick note: I posted a new release of the Internet Monitor software today. (v. 1.0.0.17) It's available at http://www.wispadvantage.com/html/custom_software.html I addressed a few bugs and improved the stability of the speed test features in this release. I also made significant changes to the email-report mechanism. It now generates a nice XML file when sending the test results back to the ISP. I'm getting close to having an automated method for checking-for and downloading-updates, but without more testing, I'm not ready to deploy that code quite yet. Hopefully I'll have it within the next week. Regards, Larry Yunker Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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] Bugs Install Issues - Internet Monitor
So that we don't clog up the list with bug reports and installation issues, I'm going to request that everyone send email me [offlist] if they need support in setting up the Internet Monitor software or if they have found any bugs in the software. I DO appreciate the interest in the software package and I'll be glad to work with as many of you as time allows. I really am anxious to work through these initial bugs and get a stable product out to the ISP community ASAP. I'll add a link to the distribution web site listing all known issues and bugs regarding the software so that people can track how and when issues have been resolved. BTW, I still encourage on-list discussion regarding future features that you would like to see added to the software. I'm not trying to stifle useful discussion here, I'm just suggesting that support requests and bug reports go offlist to a more appropriate forum. Thanks, Larry Yunker Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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] FW: [WISP] Internet Monitor - new release posted
Just a quick note: I posted a new release of the Internet Monitor software today. (v. 1.0.0.17) It's available at http://www.wispadvantage.com/html/custom_software.html I addressed a few bugs and improved the stability of the speed test features in this release. I also made significant changes to the email-report mechanism. It now generates a nice XML file when sending the test results back to the ISP. I'm getting close to having an automated method for checking-for and downloading-updates, but without more testing, I'm not ready to deploy that code quite yet. Hopefully I'll have it within the next week. Regards, Larry Yunker Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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] Ping?
No messages in 12 hours. Is the list down? 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] Internet Monitor Software was User Check
I've prepared Release 1.0.0 SR 16 of the Internet Monitor software for general release. The Software is now available for download at: http://www.wispadvantage.com/html/custom_software.html For more information about the project please refer to the thread on the WISPA General List regarding User Check program. I suspect that this initial release will draw a fair number of change requests. For those that are interested in the program, please download and look over the initial release and submit your comments and requests and I'll try to follow up with another release towards the end of the week. One primary goal of the next release will be to build in a download updates feature so that ISPs won't have to worry about redistributing the software as improvements are made. Another goal will be to complete work on the email results feature. Stay tuned. Regards, Larry Yunker Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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] User check program
Tom, I appreciate all of the useful comments. Please note that I posted updated screen shots of the tool yesterday. Some of the changes that you are requesting have already been implemented. For instance, the speed test has been moved to a separate tab and now only runs if the subscriber switches to that tab-view. With regards to the other issues that have been raised I plan to deploy an initial release of this tool on Sunday. OBVIOUSLY.. It won't have everything that everyone has requested. If I halted deployment for EVERY request, I would never get any version of the product to market. After the product is released, I'm going to work on making the subsequent release even more flexible. Ideally, I'd like to make the application completely dynamic so that the ISP can define each ping (hop) that should be tested for the given client. I'm also still looking into other languages onto which I might port the application to so as to make a more compact and portable solution. Warning... I'm relatively certain that any port to a different language will be delayed for several weeks. Unfortunately, my development time is quite restricted at the moment as I am busy studying for the Ohio Bar Exam. Besides, learning an entirely new OO language is just going to take a little time. BTW, I did pick up an iMac at a garage sale today (for $5), so maybe when the time comes, I'll even be able to develop a solution for the Apple platform. Larry Yunker Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 8:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] User check program Two comments... When we diagnose a client, we are trying to discover six things... 1) Is the PC's Pri NIC active and configured for TCP IP 2) Can they reach their home router 3) Can they reach the first hop cell site/tower 4) Can they reach the far side Backbone edge of network. 5) Can they reach Internet. 6) Is DNS resolving. So I suggest adding to the test, test to self. Pinging its own PC IP, to confirm NIC Cable plugged in, or interface turned up. (Could be helpful even if two interfaces on PC, ether and wireless) #3 is more tricky, because each client might have a different tower IP. So this would have to be a custom set IP. It would be left untested, if the ini file had not been configured with a valid test IP. I could see the installion tech adding in this IP at time of install. But this is an essential test. It tells the End user, whether it likely that their outage is unique to their home. If they can get to the tower, but not further, they know there is likely a network wide outage. It also tells the end user to reboot the outdoor equipment. Secondly, I ask us to challenge why we want this tool most. a) To test performance, or b) To locate failure points. These are two very different purposes. I'd suggest that this tool is most useful for option b. I would have the start test button for Speed test be a sdifferent start button than the one that performs all the other uptime tests. So a Speed test isn;t done everytime the end user jsut wants to verify why they can't get to the Internet. I'd like to have a Disclaimer field right under the Speed Test line, that was customizable by the ISP in the INI. For example, I'd say... Speed test is just a basic test, to get a detailed speed test, goto site at www..net. (I'm not saying you can;t make a good speed test, but speed testing can be very complicated. I'd hate to see this valuable tool get delayed, attempting to optimize speed test methods, or for the simplicity of the tool to be compromised. If there is a place for a disclaimer, it could reduce support calls, of I bought a 1.5mb, how come I'm getting 1mb. I don;t want to bring that to their attention. It might even be a good idea to have an ini setting that allows the ISP to disable the speed test option. It could also be expanded by adding additional buttons to the right of each Test. For example, the MAil Server Test, will give the latency and accessibility of the Mail server. A button could be to the right labled test or Verify, and then it launch a Telnet to port 25, and print the server response. It could be exspanded by having a Hints button to the right of each test, to suggest ways to fix. For example, if Gateway was not responding, it would suggest a) check cabling, b) reboot Router, etc. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 6:01 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] User check program Super COOLNESS! I'd contribute some $ for that. Couple suggestions... 1) Emailing results was a great idea. But it would also be nice to have a second Email address that the test would go to. it could be a hidden
Re: [WISPA] User check program
When it comes to cross platform support, I would agree that Java wins out. When it comes to end-user software in a Windows environment, I would have to disagree and state that almost all recent (last 2 to 3 years) development has turned to the .Net platform. Regardless, I am still seeking a 3rd option... I'm looking for a good development platform which can generate standalone exe's for Windows. - Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 4:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] User check program On Jun 12, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Larry Yunker wrote: But JAVA requires that a Java VM be installed on the PC. The point is to avoid having to install a separate Framework. Ideally, I'd like a linker that would just compile in those components within .NET that I rely upon. The Java VM has a far greater market penetration than .NET. Back in my software days Java was over 95%. -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/ 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] User check program
BTW, someone is bound to ask why the system shows 0ms in the first test that happens to be what VB.Net reports when a ping times-out (right now I have it configured to treat timeouts as 999ms for purposes of averaging). I considered changing the display to show 999 or timeout, but then I thought about how the clients might get upset if they see that sort of test result, so I just left it as displaying 0ms. It's fairly easy change if anyone thinks it should be changed. - Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Yunker Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 4:25 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] User check program How's this one look? I thought I'd put something together to be used as a user check program. It's fully functional now, but I need to build an ini file reader to hold each ISP's individualized settings I'll probably knock that out on Tuesday. then I'll try to publish it. If anyone sees something they would like changed/added, let me know. Regards, Larry Yunker Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 6:54 PM To: WISPA General List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WISPA] User check program Hi, I was wondering if anyone has written or seen a program that would do some basic connectivity checking for customers? I had the thought today that it would be really cool to have a simple program people could download on their PC and then run that would do things like: (1) Ping to our backbone router via IP address (showing latency results as well) (2) Ping our main DNS servers via IP address (3) Ping a domain name (4) Ping our main email server (5) Ping the customers default gateway (6) Show their configured IP address (both on the machine and on the Internet) (7) Speed test to our backbone (maybe just FTP a file from a local server and compute the time vs. file size?) (8) One additional button that would send all the results via email to whatever email address they put in. It would need to be a nice, pretty interface with a single button that says Start. Then the results could show a Green Light for each item that was OK or a Red Light if there is a problem. It would also be nice to have your company Logo and phone number on the interface. Is anyone up for this task? I would be willing to pay to have something written, unless there is already something close out there? Travis Microserv 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] User check program
planned to add. I'll probably create a drop-down list which can be populated by the ini file. I hate trusting clients to correctly type in email addresses ;-) 9) Ability for the program to request a new INI file from the speed test server so we could remotely update a customer's check program without customer's intervention (beyond the initial installation of course). Automatic updating the check program executatable itself would be really nice but even just an update of the INI file would be huge! No server side program would be required as this could be as simple as downloading a file from a HTTP web server just prior to performing the check each and every time. First line in the INI file could have as username 1234smith which would be used to download file usercheck1234smith.dat from the web server and save it on the local computer as usercheck.ini. If there was no such .dat file on the speed test server computer then the original usercheck.ini file would remain. I guess the username would have to be entered by the user to customize it during installation. If a custom username was entered during installation then it should show somewhere on the test report and be included in the test results email. - I like the idea of checking for remote updates. Probably a round two upgrade, but definitely worth doing. 10) Add ping test for the Tower. This allows the user to determine and differentiate from a failure somewhere in our network between them and the central DNS server. This could be the IP address of the AP they get service from or maybe a backhaul router. Logically, this test would be second, after the test for a gateway ping. If the INI file was customizable on a per user basis (see item 9 above) then this particular test could be unique to each customer. This test could be disabled and hidden for a standard install of the user check program and only appear if the INI file was customized for a particular customer. - This one will go hand-in-hand with #4. Rather than hard coding the test servers, I'll change the system to pull up a dynamic list of potential test targets from the ini file. 11) Add a line under the tech support phone number for a tech support email address such as [EMAIL PROTECTED] since emails are always better than phone calls...if you can get your customers trained to use that method. ;) Maybe make the address clickable to open a compose new email window to encourage customers to use this method! - YES YES YES... this will definitely be included in the FIRST CUT. 12) Have the program minimize itself to a notification area icon. Once minimized, a simple red, yellow, or green ball would show status all the time. Maybe periodically ping the backbone router and Internet connectivity IP addresses. To reduce flashes of yellow during network congestion I wouldn't compare the resulting ping times to determine green or yellow status of the notification area icon. I would just show green if both the backbone router and the Internet addresses respond to a ping, and yellow if only the backbone router replies. Red if the backbone router does not respond to the ping. - Neat idea, I don't know if you want every one of your wireless clients generative useless ICMP traffic all of the time. On an 802.11 network, having hundreds of meaningless ICMP requests running all of the time could severely impact performance. ALSO on networks with dynamic polling, the ICMP requests could screw up the polling algorithm and cause the AP to allocate time to dormant connections. I invite feedback on this one since there is a difference of opinion here. P.S. Anyone know how to minimize to tray and modify the tray icon in vb.net? That one's new on me. 13) Add a check box option for the customer to have the user check program automatically start when they start their computer. - Hmmm I hate start-up programs but I'll leave this one open to consensus as well. Would this be useful? Regards, Larry Yunker Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Yunker Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 4:34 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] User check program BTW, someone is bound to ask why the system shows 0ms in the first test that happens to be what VB.Net reports when a ping times-out (right now I have it configured to treat timeouts as 999ms for purposes of averaging). I considered changing the display to show 999 or timeout, but then I thought about how the clients might get upset if they see that sort of test result, so I just left it as displaying 0ms. It's fairly easy change if anyone thinks it should be changed. - Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Yunker Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 4:25 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] User check program How's this one look? I
Re: [WISPA] User check program
Right now the app is configured to pull the email server address to be tested from the ISP's INI file. I'm not testing to make sure that the mail software settings are configured correctly. I'm just pinging through to a predefined server address. In fact, I'm not even checking to see if the customer can connect to a POP3, IMAP, or SMTP port. Of course, checking email client settings wouldn't be a bad idea for a future release but I'd need some suggestions as to how to identify such settings given the diverse set of client applications. Ideas? - Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Randy Cosby Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 11:40 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] User check program Looks good. Just one question: where are you pulling the mail server ip address from? In our case, we can't assume our users are on the same software (outlook/windows mail). Some have thunderbird, others (gag) Incredimail Randy Larry Yunker wrote: How's this one look? I thought I'd put something together to be used as a user check program. It's fully functional now, but I need to build an ini file reader to hold each ISP's individualized settings I'll probably knock that out on Tuesday. then I'll try to publish it. If anyone sees something they would like changed/added, let me know. Regards, Larry Yunker Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 6:54 PM To: WISPA General List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WISPA] User check program Hi, I was wondering if anyone has written or seen a program that would do some basic connectivity checking for customers? I had the thought today that it would be really cool to have a simple program people could download on their PC and then run that would do things like: (1) Ping to our backbone router via IP address (showing latency results as well) (2) Ping our main DNS servers via IP address (3) Ping a domain name (4) Ping our main email server (5) Ping the customers default gateway (6) Show their configured IP address (both on the machine and on the Internet) (7) Speed test to our backbone (maybe just FTP a file from a local server and compute the time vs. file size?) (8) One additional button that would send all the results via email to whatever email address they put in. It would need to be a nice, pretty interface with a single button that says Start. Then the results could show a Green Light for each item that was OK or a Red Light if there is a problem. It would also be nice to have your company Logo and phone number on the interface. Is anyone up for this task? I would be willing to pay to have something written, unless there is already something close out there? Travis Microserv 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/ -- Randy Cosby Vice President InfoWest, Inc office: 435-773-6071 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] User check program
A question that remains to be answered.. What format shall I use when sending the test results to email? Right now I've got the system simply creating a delimited list of test results as one long string. It's not pretty, but it's very easy to parse if you want to load it into some sort of database. It would take a bit longer, but I could modify the code to generate an XML file. Any thoughts regarding output format? - Larry _ From: Travis Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 9:23 AM To: WISPA General List Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WISPA] User check program This is perfect and exactly what I was looking for... :) Here are a couple changes I would suggest: (1) under the My Internet Settings have it show IP address, Subnet mask and default gateway. Then move the DNS to the other side under with Mail Server being the last on the list. (2) Internet Connectivity Test needs to show what it's pinging (I assume it would be a domain name like www.google.com). (3) Network speed test needs to do a download AND upload test (using FTP maybe?). Should be able to have a username/password and the server name to accomplish downloading and uploading files on a server. This is very cool. Nice work! Travis Larry Yunker wrote: How's this one look? I thought I'd put something together to be used as a user check program. It's fully functional now, but I need to build an ini file reader to hold each ISP's individualized settings I'll probably knock that out on Tuesday. then I'll try to publish it. If anyone sees something they would like changed/added, let me know. Regards, Larry Yunker Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 6:54 PM To: WISPA General List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WISPA] User check program Hi, I was wondering if anyone has written or seen a program that would do some basic connectivity checking for customers? I had the thought today that it would be really cool to have a simple program people could download on their PC and then run that would do things like: (1) Ping to our backbone router via IP address (showing latency results as well) (2) Ping our main DNS servers via IP address (3) Ping a domain name (4) Ping our main email server (5) Ping the customers default gateway (6) Show their configured IP address (both on the machine and on the Internet) (7) Speed test to our backbone (maybe just FTP a file from a local server and compute the time vs. file size?) (8) One additional button that would send all the results via email to whatever email address they put in. It would need to be a nice, pretty interface with a single button that says Start. Then the results could show a Green Light for each item that was OK or a Red Light if there is a problem. It would also be nice to have your company Logo and phone number on the interface. Is anyone up for this task? I would be willing to pay to have something written, unless there is already something close out there? Travis Microserv 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] User check program
I suppose that it would be possible to derive settings from a web server, but I was imagining that if your customer was using this tool, they would be experiencing a connectivity issue. If they can't connect to the internet, there is a fairly good chance that they can't reach your web server either. Thus, the need to keep at least the default settings in a local file of some sort. It sounds like at least some of you would like to see this tool be more versatile and be more of a general monitoring tool that can run in background all of the time. If it runs in background and constantly tests the network, I am concerned with the impact that such testing would have on wireless network performance. For instance, in a Waverider network the dynamic polling determines the percentage of time to allocate to each radio based on the frequency with which that client talks to the network. If every radio on the network is sending ping requests every so many minutes, the AP cannot ignore ANY of the radios and thus the dynamic polling mechanism fails to work properly. Is there any sort of workaround to this? Are radios able to ignore small packets when formulating dynamic polling allocation? - Larry _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 1:51 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] User check program Could the settings be stored in a file on a web server, and an ini file (or compiled in file) just point to the file on the web server? That way, if your network changes and you want to re-point everyone to different ip's, you just change the one file on your web server, not hundreds of ini files across your service area. The logo on the program could just be a pic on the web server too. So, even your company logo could be changed en mass. ~Feature Idea~ Also, something I wanted to work on some day was an icon for the notification bar (in vb.net this is easy). The icon could use different colors and the tool tip (or ~GASP~ a pop up!) to let people know of any service announcements or outages, etc. This notification could be another file on a web server that it checks every 10 minutes or so. That way, if something goes down, you don't get 2000 phone calls in a row telling you so (as long as the customer can still reach the web server...) Jason David E. Smith wrote: David, there are too many variables, I think, to have a compiled program with the settings buried into it. We will want a way to modular-ize it. Or it could be done both ways, with the option to set it to compiled or INI. The compiled version WOULD make for an easier download and use, yes. Either all the variables go into an .ini file, or they all go into one file in the source code. You could even split the difference, and have default settings compiled in, that are overridden by the presence of a valid .ini. 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/ --- AV Spam Filtering by M+Guardian - Risk Free Email (TM) --- 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] FCC changes
The problem lies in the common belief that one can draft a contract which imposes a penalty for breach of contract. While courts often allow some measure of liquidated damages they generally will not protect a drafting party by enforcing a penalty clause. So, if you were challenged by a customer when trying to enforce an early termination fee of $1000.00 on a 2 year term internet service agreement, you would have to show that you would likely loose $1000.00 in expenses and ascertainable future revenues. For example: If you charge $50.00 per month for internet, you could probably show $1000.00 in potential loss over the two year term but remember that the amount of loss diminishes the further into that term that you get. BUT... Now look at your example of a $10,000 termination fee. No court would enforce a $10,000 termination fee for $50/month internet because it would clearly be a penalty. Worst case if you paid $1000.00 for the CPE, $500 for the install, and lost $1200 in future revenues, you would still only have lost $2700.00 total. So the court would cap you at $2700.00 worth of liquidated damages. I know that everyone would like to think that there is an absolute freedom to put anything you want into a contract, but it's simply not true. Courts reform contracts when the contracts try to impose penalties. The policy reason for doing disallowing penalties is to promote freedom of contract. In that sometimes it's better for competition, the economy, and the marketplace for parties to be able to BREACH their contractual agreements. Therefore we want to allow breaches to occur when it would economically make sense to leave the contract or break its terms. Let's face it... if you could ALWAYS write a big penalty into every contract, NO ONE would ever be able to willingly break a contract. - Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scottie Arnett Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 12:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes I still don't get it. If you specifically stated the early termination fee in the contract and provide a well defined SLA and what will happen if you do not provide that SLA to the customer, then what is to be argued? If the contract says there is a $1000 termination fee or a $10,000 termination fee, it should not matter. When you both sign your name to the contract, you have both agreed to all terms IN that contract. It is what is left out of the contract that should be dealt with in court. As per this discussion, the Internet in most part is still unregulated. Just because the FCC rules it on the cell carriers (which I think is still not right), it should not be passed on to ISP's until the Internet is a fully regulated industry that falls under their control. Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Larry Yunker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 01:12:14 -0400 Whether it is the job of the FCC to ensure fairness with regards to telecommunications contracts is yet to be determined. Traditionally, STATE COURTS have resolved contractual disputes. However, in 2005, a cell carrier named SunCom filed a petition with the FCC asking the FCC to declare that early termination fees fall under rate charged doctrine and therefore fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the FCC (thus blocking STATE COURTS from rendering decisions against the cell carrier). The FCC has held comment on the issue and was thought to be getting close to a ruling on the issue when SunCom suddenly and unexpectedly SETTLED their case (March 21, 2008) with their client(s) and dropped the petition for the declaratory ruling. The net effect is that the FCC hasn't decided whether early termination fees as a contractual issue are strictly a FEDERAL issue to be decided by the FCC or if they are a traditional common law issue to be decided at the state level. The meetings later this month may shed some further light on how ETF's will be adjudicated in the future. It certainly appears that the FCC is moving towards regulation of the marketplace. Don't take my comments to be weighing in favor of FCC regulation of this issue. I believe that state courts could certainly resolve these disputes just as well as the FCC (albeit inconsistently across state lines). Common law contract law as well as consumer protection statutes would address many of the concerns that have been raised with regards to early termination fees. The problem that we have today is that many state federal courts have placed litigation regarding early termination fees on hold UNTIL the FCC declares whether or not they are going to completely preempt the field of telecommunication termination fees. This indecision by the FCC has held up litigation for up to three years in state and federal courts. The main thing that we need right now is definitive action of some sort so
Re: [WISPA] FCC changes
I agree that the auto-renew trick is a concern, but I think that cellular service is where this all started. Changes in availability, reliability, packages, and competition in the cellular market has also lead to much of the push for early termination fee (ETF) reform. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, land-line phone rates are tariffed services. Cellular is NOT subject to tariffs and is VERY loosely regulated with regards to quality issues. With the mergers of Cingular and ATT and Nextel and Sprint, roughly half of all cell phone users in the U.S. have had some sort of merger affect their service, billing, or network over the past five years. Some changes have been good, some bad, but the net effect is that these changes may have spurred many customers to look elsewhere for service. From the consumer's prospective, ETF's stand in the way of customer choice. From the prospective of a service provider we all understand the need to recoup our investment and we understand the cost of losing a customer, hopefully the regulators will see this potential loss to the provider before issuing any preemptory rules regarding EFT's. - Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 5:27 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes This could turn in to something it shouldn't really fast... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002 776.html I agree that this could be a real issue. But one thing that really irks me though is the under handed(in my opinion) use of auto renewing contracts. After the contract is up it should just switch to month to month service. This is likely what has opened this can of worms. I know of a few people that are screaming about that. They switch there telco circuits to a new provider. They sign like a 2 year term. After 2 years 4 months they figure the contract is up so they switch again. They get nailed on early termination because it auto renewed for another 2 years 4 months earlier. 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/ 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] FCC changes
I think that the FCC has a bona fide reason for addressing the early termination fee issue. The underlying concern is that early termination fees often do not reflect the true cost incurred by the contracting provider as a result of the subscriber's breach of contract. In reality, an early termination fee should be prorated over the course of the contract such that at the beginning of the contract term, the cost includes the full cost of equipment, installation, and acquisition which has been lost due to that customer. Whereas, as the subscriber nears the end of his term, there should be very little cost remaining to be recovered. The problems that arise are these: (1) Early termination fees are often too low to cover the full cost of the equipment/installation, so companies average-out losses by cost-shifting. For example assume Customer A and Customer B both sign up for 2 year terms with a $200.00 early termination fee and each received equipment and installation worth $350.00. Customer A drops in month 1, so the Service Provider loses its entire $350.00 investment. Customer B drops in month 23 so the Service Provider has recouped most 95% of its $350.00 investment. The Service Provider loses $150.00 on Customer A but gains roughly $182.00 by overcharging Customer B. This system shifts the cost burden from those who drop early to those who drop late. (2) Customers are usually not made aware of the costs of the equipment and installation that they are receiving as part of their package deal. If customer's understood that their neat new Razor phone actually costs $350.00, they might opt to keep their old phone longer or they might not buy at all. Similarly in the broadband arena, if the DSL subscriber understood that the DSL/Wireless router costs $100 and the DSLAM port costs $200, they might think twice before signing up for 2 years at $20.00 a month. (3) Providers lose some of their incentive to maintain quality service and/or customer service when they know that their clients are under an oppressive contract which limits their ability to choose an alternative provider. For example: If a provider knows that their customer is on a 2 year term with a $200.00 early termination fee and that provider charges the customer $40.00 per month for service, the provider has very little incentive to respond to the customer during the last 5 months of the contract. During that period, the provider stands to gain more from the early termination than they do through the subscription fees! Potential Solutions to these problems: (1)Require disclosure and option to pay actual installation, equipment, and acquisition fees in lieu of early termination fees. (2)Require that cancellation fees reflect the actual cost of installation, equipment, and acquisition fees. (This one is pretty idealistic. providers will almost always eat some cost and pass it along through subscription fees). (3)Require proration of early termination fees so that the cost-shifting described above CANNOT OCCUR. (4)Allow/Encourage/Require? competing providers to buy-out the prorated balance of any early termination fee for a new customer that wants to switch to that new provider. Often the cost of buying out a prorated balance will be less than the cost of new customer acquisition, so it would be a win-win for the new provider and the new customer. (5)Encourage interoperability of equipment between providers or provide some realistic secondary market for customer equipment so that costs of switching carriers could be mitigated. Make locking phones and/or CPE illegal wherever the customer owns the equipment. (6)Provide a mechanism for regulation of minimum standards of service, if a provider cannot meet the minimum standard of service then a customer should be released from his contract without penalty and the equipment should be returned to the provider. a.This idea could be established in the cell phone industry by recording a baseline of coverage within the first 30 days of new service and comparing changes in coverage to that first 30 day baseline. If the coverage drops significantly from the baseline then the customer would have a basis for dropping without penalty. In the fixed wireless business, this process could be more difficult due to the uncertainty of outside interference, but the concept remains the same. Set a baseline, set a minimum threshold and create a procedure for testing against that threshold. Well that's my two cents worth. hopefully some of these ideas make it through to the powers-that-be in D.C. Larry Yunker, J.D. Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 11:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] FCC changes This could turn in to something it shouldn't really fast... http
Re: [WISPA] FCC changes
Travis, I agree wholeheartedly that a customer should be held to the terms of a contract and certainly should be responsible for reading and accepting the terms of the agreement. The issue is that some contracts are designed to penalize rather than recoup costs. The measure of a breach of contract is always supposed to be the loss on that individual contract not a penalty to help cover the costs lost on other contracts. (i.e. the cost shifting discussed below). Absent some showing of fraud or similar abuse, there are no penalties recognized at law in contracts. So, to the extent that a termination fee is imposed to penalize an unwilling party to the contract, the fee is invalid. - Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 2:41 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes Or really, the consumer could just read the contract before they sign it. Problem solved. ;) Travis Microserv Larry Yunker wrote: I think that the FCC has a bona fide reason for addressing the early termination fee issue. The underlying concern is that early termination fees often do not reflect the true cost incurred by the contracting provider as a result of the subscriber's breach of contract. In reality, an early termination fee should be prorated over the course of the contract such that at the beginning of the contract term, the cost includes the full cost of equipment, installation, and acquisition which has been lost due to that customer. Whereas, as the subscriber nears the end of his term, there should be very little cost remaining to be recovered. The problems that arise are these: (1) Early termination fees are often too low to cover the full cost of the equipment/installation, so companies average-out losses by cost-shifting. For example assume Customer A and Customer B both sign up for 2 year terms with a $200.00 early termination fee and each received equipment and installation worth $350.00. Customer A drops in month 1, so the Service Provider loses its entire $350.00 investment. Customer B drops in month 23 so the Service Provider has recouped most 95% of its $350.00 investment. The Service Provider loses $150.00 on Customer A but gains roughly $182.00 by overcharging Customer B. This system shifts the cost burden from those who drop early to those who drop late. (2) Customers are usually not made aware of the costs of the equipment and installation that they are receiving as part of their package deal. If customer's understood that their neat new Razor phone actually costs $350.00, they might opt to keep their old phone longer or they might not buy at all. Similarly in the broadband arena, if the DSL subscriber understood that the DSL/Wireless router costs $100 and the DSLAM port costs $200, they might think twice before signing up for 2 years at $20.00 a month. (3) Providers lose some of their incentive to maintain quality service and/or customer service when they know that their clients are under an oppressive contract which limits their ability to choose an alternative provider. For example: If a provider knows that their customer is on a 2 year term with a $200.00 early termination fee and that provider charges the customer $40.00 per month for service, the provider has very little incentive to respond to the customer during the last 5 months of the contract. During that period, the provider stands to gain more from the early termination than they do through the subscription fees! Potential Solutions to these problems: (1)Require disclosure and option to pay actual installation, equipment, and acquisition fees in lieu of early termination fees. (2)Require that cancellation fees reflect the actual cost of installation, equipment, and acquisition fees. (This one is pretty idealistic. providers will almost always eat some cost and pass it along through subscription fees). (3)Require proration of early termination fees so that the cost-shifting described above CANNOT OCCUR. (4)Allow/Encourage/Require? competing providers to buy-out the prorated balance of any early termination fee for a new customer that wants to switch to that new provider. Often the cost of buying out a prorated balance will be less than the cost of new customer acquisition, so it would be a win-win for the new provider and the new customer. (5)Encourage interoperability of equipment between providers or provide some realistic secondary market for customer equipment so that costs of switching carriers could be mitigated. Make locking phones and/or CPE illegal wherever the customer owns the equipment. (6)Provide a mechanism for regulation of minimum standards of service, if a provider cannot meet the minimum standard of service then a customer should be released from his contract without penalty
Re: [WISPA] FCC changes
Whether it is the job of the FCC to ensure fairness with regards to telecommunications contracts is yet to be determined. Traditionally, STATE COURTS have resolved contractual disputes. However, in 2005, a cell carrier named SunCom filed a petition with the FCC asking the FCC to declare that early termination fees fall under rate charged doctrine and therefore fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the FCC (thus blocking STATE COURTS from rendering decisions against the cell carrier). The FCC has held comment on the issue and was thought to be getting close to a ruling on the issue when SunCom suddenly and unexpectedly SETTLED their case (March 21, 2008) with their client(s) and dropped the petition for the declaratory ruling. The net effect is that the FCC hasn't decided whether early termination fees as a contractual issue are strictly a FEDERAL issue to be decided by the FCC or if they are a traditional common law issue to be decided at the state level. The meetings later this month may shed some further light on how ETF's will be adjudicated in the future. It certainly appears that the FCC is moving towards regulation of the marketplace. Don't take my comments to be weighing in favor of FCC regulation of this issue. I believe that state courts could certainly resolve these disputes just as well as the FCC (albeit inconsistently across state lines). Common law contract law as well as consumer protection statutes would address many of the concerns that have been raised with regards to early termination fees. The problem that we have today is that many state federal courts have placed litigation regarding early termination fees on hold UNTIL the FCC declares whether or not they are going to completely preempt the field of telecommunication termination fees. This indecision by the FCC has held up litigation for up to three years in state and federal courts. The main thing that we need right now is definitive action of some sort so that subscribers have rights either in state court or before the FCC and so that PROVIDERS have some sense of direction with regards to their obligations or limitations under common law and regulatory regimes. - Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 12:12 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Larry Yunker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes Travis, I agree wholeheartedly that a customer should be held to the terms of a contract and certainly should be responsible for reading and accepting the terms of the agreement. The issue is that some contracts are designed to penalize rather than recoup costs. Again... So? It is not the job of government to ensure that everything a customer chooses to do is made fair for him. 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] Watertower trouble
Chuck McCown Wrote: Talk to a judge for an emergency injunction. That is interfering with interstate commerce. Two issues with this approach... (1) if you are claiming an interstate commerce issue you need to file in Federal Court (2) if you aren't crossing state lines with your signal, then it's unlikely that you could turn this into an interstate commerce issue (you would have to show that your service substantial effecting things that travel in interstate commerce). Besides... the government is going to argue that it's a health safety issue and the police power for health and safety is almost always going to trump any temporary inconvenience to private business. You would probably have better luck negotiating a deal with the city and the city's contractor for shrouding your equipment as suggested by others on this list. Larry Yunker Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. The information contained in this message is informed but is NOT LEGAL ADVISE (YET!) 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] Watertower trouble
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 2 Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:56 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Watertower trouble Nope, telecommunications are defacto interstate, especially internet and in general anything that the FCC regulates. The FCC had declared all internet communications as interstate in nature and they have successfully kept the jurisdiction over such cases. - Yep, you are right, internet service as a form of telecommunications is interstate, but provisioning may still be controlled under local (state) law and contract-law is definitely a state law issue. Federal judges are easy to find. And obtaining an emergency injunction is frequently done on unilateral argument. The town's opinion would not even be asked. If possible you totally blindside them. - As a last resort, you could ask for a TRO (temporary restraining order) to stop the municipality from kicking you off, but keep in mind that police power is given great deference. If the muni can show that there is a chance that delaying the sandblasting will put even one person's health at risk, the judge should revoke the TRO immediately and the muni will likely be pissed at you for having put them through the hassle of going to court. My 2 cents worth - try to negotiate FIRST and resort to the courts LAST. - Larry 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] Frontier communications is blocking access to our VOIP
Do you know whether Heartland is set up as a CLEC in Illinois? Do they have switches in the LATA that from which you are trying to port numbers? If not, do they have an agreement with a CLEC or ILEC that does have switching capability in that LATA? Under the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) local number portability (LNP) rules, so long as you remain in the same geographic area, you can switch telephone service providers and keep your existing phone number. I've heard of telco's claiming non-portability of numbers based on the fact that a Vo-IP provider is actually not in the same geographic area in that the Vo-IP provider had no facilities and no partners in that geographic area. ALSO Note: Certain small wireline companies may have an exemption from the porting requirements if they have received a waiver from their state public service commission. Larry Yunker, Network Consultant WISP Advantage [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ross Cornett Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 12:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Frontier communications is blocking access to our VOIP We found that ICTC (Illinois Consolidated Telephone Company) and Frontier use the same tandem in Mattoon illinois... Frontier will pass calls from Frontier to ICTC... However, when we port a number from ICTC, they will not hand the call over to heartland communications, which is our new VOIP provider... I called the ICC(Illinois Commerce Commission) they told me I had to call the FCC they told me until I contacted a lawyer and they would not talk to me... I can't believe the red tape... In the meantime, I have customers in Frontier Communications, that are losing service due to this mishap... _ Galatians 6:7-8: Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. _ - Original Message - From: Eric Merkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Frontier communications is blocking access to our VOIP Have your CLEC call them and make sure it is not just a routing issue or problem in their phone switch. We've run into this quite a bit with rural telco's in our area. If they are truly blocking calls to your numbers, complain to your state's public utility comission ASAP! -Eric On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Ross Cornett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone know of anything that can help me here? Frontier communciations is allowing us to port numbers out of their territory, but they are blocking callers from their areas from calling those numbers Is this legal? Does anyone have any ideas that can help me... We are working with Heartland Communciations in Paducah Kentucky. We get our bandwidth from them. They also do our VOIP. When we switched from our Illinois Consolidated telephone system a centrex system. We moved to our inhouse VOIP provided by Heartland Communications in Paducah Kentucky. Frontier Communications started blocking their callers from calling our office and any dialup numbers we ported also... By the way Illinois Consolidated, an independant in Central Illinois has been really nice working with us on this I can't say enough about their assistance... My dialups are going fast If I can't get a solutionlet alone my office will never be able to use the VOIP that I have fibered to my office Ross E. Cornett HofNet Communications, Inc. _ Galatians 6:7-8: Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. _ ___ 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
Re: [WISPA] The best Firewall - for the money
You can pick up a Sonicwall Firewall/VPN solution starting at about $150 from liquidators or $300-$400 from retailers. The Sonicwall units are pretty easy to set up and they rarely crashed or locked up (unlike cheap Netgear/Linksys solutions) ... It's been a while since I've used one, but if I recall correctly, Sonicwall used a proprietary VPN software which required users to buy a VPN client user license (about 50-60 bucks). Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ryan Langseth Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 8:59 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] The best Firewall - for the money You can pick up a Cisco ASA5505 with basic access for under 500 from newegg. Ryan Ron Wallace wrote: Yes, you are right David, it was not specific. They need to protect their Medicial Billing Records, Patient info as well as critical info about their own business from Hackers who might discover thier business, damage some of the billing and medical data, or cause a failure in their system. Worst case would be to publish patient medical Records data, this has happened before and HHS and the Attorneys freak out, and so therefore do the Docs. Outside Access requirement is only for the Doc's wife to access the Billing System (SW) to enable work from home. I appreciate anything you are willing to share. And your pointing out the vagueness of the request was insightful, thanks very much. Ron Wallace Hahnron, Inc. 220 S. Jackson Dt. Addison, MI 49220 Phone: (517)547-8410 Mobile: (517)605-4542 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: David E. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 06:48 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] The best Firewall - for the money I have a small Medical practice that has requested a firewall for their LAN. Which would you all recommend? Price rane below $1000, Doc woule prefer $500. That's incredibly vague. What do they need to protect, from whom, and what if any outside access should be permitted? This could be as simple as a $50 Linksys router, or as complicated as a mid-range Cisco PIX (last I looked those still were in the $700-ish range). Answering the question properly will require quite a bit more information. David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Ryan Langseth System Administrator InvisiMax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 218.745.6030 Cell: 701.739.1577 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] switch ports
Travis, Is the switch in a temperature / humidity controlled environment or is it sitting outside in a relatively uncontrolled NEMA enclosure? I've seen a lot of switches die during cold weather when run in NEMA boxes. Keeping the box above freezing seems to resolve the issue in most cases. Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 1:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] switch ports Hi, Recently we have starting having ports on our ethernet switches blow out. This is during the middle of winter, when there is no lightning or any other static electricity. We simply move to a different port on the switch and everything is fine. We have protected PoE injectors (Pacific Wireless) with grounded power cords. We are using HP Procurve switches. We usually have a 3ft patch cord between the injector and switch. Is there any particular brand of managed switch that handles this type of issue better than any others? Travis Microserv 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] CALEA
Comments Below... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Muto Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:37 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA I have a question though you may or may be able to answer it. In point 1, you said you gave the LEA information on how to word their subpoena? Was this knowledge based on an attorneys consult? I'll assume it may have been unless you are an attorney yourself. Secondly, why would an attorney or anyone provide legal consult to the LEA? The DOJ has all the required information any LEA needs to obtain the information they need in an investigation. Most of it is basically fill in the blank and the forms have multiple QA to write up the subpoena. Having gone through enough of this over the past couple years, I have doubts that helping an LEA is in your best interest. How do you warrant or have legal standing on telling an LEA that their subpoena does not have the correct information for the request? It is up to the LEA to get the proper legal consult they need when writing up a subpoena and or warrant to present to the court. - Comments -- If I am not mistaken, when you are being asked to provide information in a legal matter in which you are not a named-party in the legal action, you are being placed in the position of a witness. If a witness divulges information which proves to be harmful to one of the parties in the action AND if the information which is divulged is NOT protected as being required under subpoena, then the witness could potential open themselves up for a civil lawsuit with claims of libel, slander, defamation, wrongful interference, etc. So, it is NOT uncommon or unwise for a witness to seek legal counsel before disclosing information under a subpoena. I don't know if a witness' lawyer could coach the requesting party in the wording of the subpoena. On the other hand, I'm quite certain that IF a witness felt that the information that they held was pertinent and the witness wanted clarification on whether they could divulge the information under the subpoena, they could request a hearing before the judge in the pending matter. The judge could do an in-camera review to determine what stays and what goes. Then it's up to the judge to tell the requesting party if and to what extent their subpoena needs to be modified. Larry Yunker Network Consultant Law Student [EMAIL PROTECTED] Disclaimer: The information contained in this message is not to be considered legal advice. I am not a lawyer (yet) and therefore I am not in a position to provide legal advice. 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] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 2:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC What is considered a large number of connections? How many connections is it safe to limit to, without compromising a user's typical usage. Would this be an effective way of determining when a class of plan is being abused, such as a business using a residential plan, or a small community WISP trying to use a single residential plan conneciton? Is it possible that we need to start charge for number of connections instead of just say the number of bytes transfered or speed? My nephew and I occassionally play BF2142 online. My Linksys DD-WRT based router had a problem. It had max ports set out 512. When my PC then his polled hundreds of servers to find the best connection it hit that limit. Raising it to 1024 seemed to fix it. So limiting connections will likely smack gamers as well as p2p users. Keep in mind that when a gamer opens 1024 connections within a few seconds, he will have a detrimental effect on any wireless network and severe effect on those wireless networks that do not use polling (i.e. 802.11 based systems). So as a network operator, you may still be interested in limiting resource availability for that sort of application. - Larry 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] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC What is considered a large number of connections? How many connections is it safe to limit to, without compromising a user's typical usage. Would this be an effective way of determining when a class of plan is being abused, such as a business using a residential plan, or a small community WISP trying to use a single residential plan conneciton? Is it possible that we need to start charge for number of connections instead of just say the number of bytes transfered or speed? My nephew and I occassionally play BF2142 online. My Linksys DD-WRT based router had a problem. It had max ports set out 512. When my PC then his polled hundreds of servers to find the best connection it hit that limit. Raising it to 1024 seemed to fix it. So limiting connections will likely smack gamers as well as p2p users. Keep in mind that when a gamer opens 1024 connections within a few seconds, he will have a detrimental effect on any wireless network and severe effect on those wireless networks that do not use polling (i.e. 802.11 based systems). So as a network operator, you may still be interested in limiting resource availability for that sort of application. We run Canopy. When a gamer does this they usually find a server and do not have to run another scan for quite some time. Where p2p does this crap all day long. P2p is also a bandwidth hog and we have limited resources there due to the wireless loop and we deploy in rural areas where bandwidth is pricey. Good Point The duration of a scan would certainly have an effect on the impact on the network. If the scan is completed within a few seconds then the network disruption might go unnoticed. It sounds like the solution here would not be to limit the number of simultaneous connections but rather to limit the number of sustained simultaneous connections. - Larry 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] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
Your options for recourse are going to depend largely upon the state in which you operate. However, most states are now recognizing either in common law or via statute some of the following: Tortious Interference with Business Relations Tortious Interference with Contract Unfair Trade Practices Consumer Protection Rights Note that these are all CIVIL remedies. I doubt that you would have much luck getting CRIMINAL remedies since the D.A.'s offices rarely have the resources to chase down their current case load. The key to ANY of these remedies will be to establish the intentional and malicious nature of your competitor's actions. If you can show that the competitor has no clients in the area and is just blasting interference for the sake of taking out your system, you might have something to work with, but if your competitor can show that he has even one client in receiving service from the offending radio system, you would have a lot harder time getting a judge to believe that the actions are improper competition rather than natural competition. Regards, Larry Yunker Network Consultant / Law Student / Ex-WISP [EMAIL PROTECTED] DISCLAIMER: The message is not to be construed as legal advise for actual legal advise you need to speak to a licensed attorney within your jurisdiction. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:56 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations It's hard for me to accept that there are a few inconsiderate bullies out there who would intentionally and maliciously jam other WISPs in order to take over the customer base. I have recently seen probable evidence of just such behavior. Because the FCC has no law (that I know of) against this disgraceful behavior, legal recourse needs to be made in state court and state laws do vary from state to state. Would anyone who has fought against this type of unethical behavior please share with me (offlist please) what State law(s) they used? Thanks in advance, jack -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] fcc committee survey
For what is worth, I believe that the USF ALREADY includes broadband services. My understanding is that in order to qualify for USF funding for your broadband services, you must also be conducting business as a ILEC or CLEC in that service area. In other words, telephone companies that service rural area can draw USF funds in order to pay for broadband deployments. However, non-telephone companies cannot tap those same funds to provide broadband services. - Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 1:09 PM To: Principal WISPA Member List Cc: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] fcc committee survey Hi All, The FCC Committee would like to know your top few issues (3 to 5) that you'd like us to PROACTIVELY work on. Things, mainly, that you'd like us to try to create movement on. Examples might be: Certified components vs. certified systems. Drop the 6' antenna requirement for 6 gig. Expand USF to include broadband services. ? thanks, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam 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] Ping
Ping? Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 900 MHz Help
Jim, A lot of channel selection is determined by case-specific considerations, but here are a few observations: The bottom end of the 902-928 spectrum is sometimes useless due to cell phone interference The top end of the 902-928 spectrum is sometimes useless due to pager system interference Any part and sometimes all of the 902-928 spectrum is eaten away by frequency hopping systems such as SCADA, Water Meter Readers, Alvarion Radios, etc. Certain home cordless phones that operate in the 902-928 spectrum will interrupt the entire spectrum while ringing. Some cordless phones will only interrupt the upper end of 902-928 while ringing (they seem to ring on 925-928 or thereabouts). Any part of the 902-928 spectrum may be disrupted by an old cordless phone because many of the older phones were fixed to a specific frequency or subset of frequencies. Bottom line... no one solution will fit all cases. You should get a spectrum analyzer out and survey your area before deploying. You should order and install cavity filters for your AP's to limit the amount of noise that your AP's pick-up but realize that your client radios will still pick up the noise because you aren't going to be install $300 cavity filters at each client location. Unless you are using equipment which rejects TONS of noise, you should avoid making your business plan rely upon servicing individuals in an urban environment where houses are closely spaced. In my experience, Waverider and Trango are not suitable for use in areas with a great deal of interference unless you are willing to face a certain number of failed installations due to unavoidable interference (when one of the neighbors has a 900mhz device in their home and causes your customer to intermittantly lose service). I can't speak to whether Canopy or Alvarion experience these same issues in 900... perhaps some others from the list can share their experiences on these or other 900 products. Larry Yunker Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.wispadvantage.com - Original Message - From: Jim Stout [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 10:14 AM Subject: [WISPA] 900 MHz Help Folks, I'm just entering into the 900MHz space and would appreciate any advice on channel selection and channel width settings. TIA, Jim Jim Stout LTO Communications, LLC 15701 Henry Andrews Dr Pleasant Hill, MO 64080 (816) 305-1076 - Mobile (816) 497-0033 - Pager -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] tv whitespaces dates! WOW
One potential reason to discourage portable devices. Personal Portable devices would cause random sporadic sources of interference for fixed point-to-point wireless systems. - Larry Yunker - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] tv whitespaces dates! WOW Marlon K. Schafer wrote: H, We need to work on this. We want to oppose the personal portable devices at this time. We don't want to see a bunch of linksys type routers with 2 mile ranges Any ideas on how to go about it? marlon Marlon Can you explain the strategy of opposing personal portable devices? Are you saying that we should prefer going in the same direction as 3650? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Trango reboot incident
What kind of battery backup? If it's not an AVR (automatic voltage regulating) UPS, then I'd guess you had a power spike. I've seen spikes reboot radios if when those radios were connected to dumb UPS's. - Larry - Original Message - From: Don Annas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 6:31 AM Subject: [WISPA] Trango reboot incident Guys, this morning around 4:40 eastern, we had an odd incident occur. We had about 3 SUs reboot at the same time and then re-register. I checked each of the SUs and according to the uptime they all rebooted. This wouldn’t seem odd to me if it was just these 3 SUs as they are associated with the same AP and they are the 5850 fox units. The odd part is we have a Trango Link 10 in that sector as well, and the remote side of that radio rebooted at the same time as the SUs. The radios are on different buildings as well as different subnets and I know that at least 2 of the SUs and the Link10 are plugged into a battery backup. Any idea what could cause this? - Don -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.412 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/694 - Release Date: 2/20/2007 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fw: Fw: [isp-wireless] FBI .......... Changed to CALEAand WISPs...
I would think that just having a CALEA compliant upstream would not satisfy the requirement. Some traffic would be untraceable. Here's the logic: Target to be monitored is at 10.0.0.10. Your EMAIL server is inside YOUR network at 10.0.0.100 Your upstream gets told to trap and tap all information going to or from 10.0.0.10 All of 10.0.0.10's email would go from 10.0.0.10 to 10.0.0.100. Then the email would go out to your upstream with IP address 10.0.0.100 sneaking right past the traps set at the upstream. Of course, the aforementioned mail transit problem is something that is going to happen and you as the end ISP won't be able to trap that traffic either unless you place the trap between the client and the email server. Larry Yunker - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: Fw: [isp-wireless] FBI .. Changed to CALEAand WISPs... That was an excellent thing to do Marlon. Big pat on the back :) I would hate to be the person that believes they don't have to file because of a post on a list. The only way I would NOT file something is if my attorney who I knew had direct contact with their attorney(s) told me he received in writing an opinion that we did not have to file. if the attorney I used a couple months ago on a contract thing told me I didn't have to file, I wouldn't believe him. It's too serious and the fines are just too stiff. Very scary stuff. But I would like the group that goes to DC this next trip to specifically ask: If an ISP hands out static Public IP's to every customer and his upstream is calea compliant, is he covered, assuming no voip is involved. George Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Hi All, I hate confusion and unanswered questions. So I sent this thread (names removed) to the HEAD of the CALEA group at the FBI. I've already been talking to Maura so I thought this appropriate. Anyway, the word from the top is that if you are a facilities base provider you fall under CALEA just like you do the 477 and 445 at the FCC. I'll let folks know more when I know more. laters, marlon - Original Message - To: 'Marlon K . Schafer 982-2181' ; 509 Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:12 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [isp-wireless] FBI .. Changed to CALEA and WISPs... Hi Marlon, First, sorry I missed your folks last week. Unfortunately I was stuck in Albany, NY for several days because of a blizzard. Second, thanks for sending this email to me. I can see that there is some confusion about who must comply. It's hard for me to tell from the email trail what services the WISP member is providing. As we talked about before, if a provider is offering Broadband Internet Access or VoIP to the public then that provider must be CALEA compliant by May 14, 2007. I'd be happy to meet with folks from WISP in the next couple of weeks so we can talk through these issues. Thanks, Maura On Wed Feb 21 10:29 , Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 sent: Hi Maura, At the risk of seeming silly, and in the hopes that this gets no one in trouble, I thought that you should see this thread from a public mailing list. I'd like your comments on the accuracy of what we've been told here. The basic thrust of this is that we, as small rural wisps, won't have to be calea compliant for various reasons. I'd like to get our meeting with your team rescheduled as soon as it makes sense. A couple of weeks down the road should give me time to find people in the area that can attend. Assuming that something has been lost in the interpretation here, we really really need to get a wisp/small operator standard in place before the final deadline. Thanks! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 1:00 PM Subject: Re: [isp-wireless] FBI .. Changed to CALEA and WISPs... Yes. I told them I had a T1 to my location and provided wireless broadband connections to customers. He told me the FBI side of CALEA was only interested in the VOIP carriers. He said he had many calls to make for the forms filed by those that didn't need to. He did say and I did mention, this call was only for the FBI side and that the FCC still has their side of this requirement and send a letter to me after if they are not interested in us. His phone number 703-632-6163, I don't remember his name, I was driving when he called. - Original Message - To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 1:25 PM Subject: Re: [isp-wireless] FBI .. Changed to CALEA and WISPs
Re: [WISPA] wisp survey
Marlon, I understand that the vast majority of WISPs have chosen not to file the 477 form (or in the alternative they just don't know that they are supposed to file). Just out of curiousity, what do you hope to accomplish by locating the thousands of non-compliant WISPs? Are you hoping to use this as-of-yet unidentified mass to evidence the difficulty of meeting the standard, or are you hoping to convince those non-compliant WISPs to join WISPA in its efforts to develop a workable standard? or are you just hoping to prove out the estimates that you have already provided to the FCC? Or is there some other driving force? Larry Yunker - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Principal WISPA Member List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:43 AM Subject: [WISPA] wisp survey Hi All, OK, we're not going to get most wisps to fill out the 477 any time soon. At least it's historically looking that way. 2 years ago I brow beat the major vendors and manufacturers into giving me the number of wisps that they show on the books and/or radios sold into the US market in the last 4 years. That effort lead to the belief that there are a genuine uncontestable 3000 wisps in this country with a minimum of 1,000,000 subscribers. Numbers that the FCC folks still use today as being more accurate than the 477. Does anyone know of a research group that we could hire to repeat my efforts in the past. Something that might be more effective yet? There has to be a better way to do this than the 477. Any ideas on the costs to do this project? Should we even put any effort into it? Could this be done by a group of scholars at a college? Looking back on the data that I'd gotten at the time and how I calculated things, I think that the real number of wisps was likely closer to 6000. Today my gut tells me that that number is up by 25ish % and that the customers serviced is likely at least double what it was back in late 2004. I know MY customer base has more than doubled since that time. thoughts? marlon -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Fw: [WISPA] wisp survey
John, I'm certainly not arguing against WISP compliance with the reporting requirement. Rather, I'm trying to clarify WISPA's interest in identifying WISPs across the nation. It sounds to me that you are looking at this from the prospective of a lobbying effort. If we can show more WISPs then we can show more need and thus can obtain more ... (spectrum, assistance, allowances, etc.) These are seem to be legitimate reasons, but they lead to the next question: If WISPA can identify WISPs across the nation, then how can WISPA convince WISPs to self-report? Is WISPA planning to use strong-arm tactics (report or we'll report you) or is WISPA hoping to just inform WISPs of their federal obligations and hope for the best? Is there some other method that would lead to greater compliance without making WISPA look a private attorney-general? Larry Yunker - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 3:14 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] wisp survey The FCC has given some unlicensed spectrum, in part, to help make lower cost access and more access to broadband available in the US. Future access to more of this unlicensed spectrum will require some accountability by the FCC that unlicensed spectrum is helping to serve that purpose. By not filing we show less impact toward filling the digital divide and we are indirectly helping to justify criticism by others that unlicensed spectrum is not effectively serving the public interest in regard to broadband availability. Filling out the forms would help us to ask for and receive more spectrum and policy relief when needed in order to continue to advance the public interests of more access and lower cost access to broadband in the US. As of now Form 477 results show WISPs as serving less than 1% of the public with broadband. This is artificially low due to non-compliance by WISPs to fill out their forms. How can the FCC justify helping WISP interests if we cannot even show what we are doing to deliver broadband using the spectrum we have been given? How would the FCC helping us, in turn, help the public interest if there is no accountability that we are helping to serve the public interest? They (the FCC) are absolutely justified in their desire to see more WISPs fill out these forms and we should be complying with this. It is not a big brother issue at all. Form 477 is there to justify our representation in policy initiatives that we need to survive. One other issue is that it is a matter of the law. We are required to comply. Scriv Larry Yunker wrote: Marlon, I understand that the vast majority of WISPs have chosen not to file the 477 form (or in the alternative they just don't know that they are supposed to file). Just out of curiousity, what do you hope to accomplish by locating the thousands of non-compliant WISPs? Are you hoping to use this as-of-yet unidentified mass to evidence the difficulty of meeting the standard, or are you hoping to convince those non-compliant WISPs to join WISPA in its efforts to develop a workable standard? or are you just hoping to prove out the estimates that you have already provided to the FCC? Or is there some other driving force? Larry Yunker - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Principal WISPA Member List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:43 AM Subject: [WISPA] wisp survey Hi All, OK, we're not going to get most wisps to fill out the 477 any time soon. At least it's historically looking that way. 2 years ago I brow beat the major vendors and manufacturers into giving me the number of wisps that they show on the books and/or radios sold into the US market in the last 4 years. That effort lead to the belief that there are a genuine uncontestable 3000 wisps in this country with a minimum of 1,000,000 subscribers. Numbers that the FCC folks still use today as being more accurate than the 477. Does anyone know of a research group that we could hire to repeat my efforts in the past. Something that might be more effective yet? There has to be a better way to do this than the 477. Any ideas on the costs to do this project? Should we even put any effort into it? Could this be done by a group of scholars at a college? Looking back on the data that I'd gotten at the time and how I calculated things, I think that the real number of wisps was likely closer to 6000. Today my gut tells me that that number is up by 25ish % and that the customers serviced is likely at least double what it was back in late 2004. I know MY customer base has more than doubled since that time. thoughts? marlon -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless
Re: Fw: [WISPA] wisp survey
that the order has already been made and the deadline is quickly approaching, there is no more time to wait for government intervention. Its up to industry groups like WISPA to fill the gap and contact WISPs and let them know about their obligations. - Larry Yunker -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] wisp survey
I've been putting some thought into how to best identify WISPs across the country. Here are the methods that strike me as possibilities assuming that the orgs were willing to cooperate. 1) WISPA member list 2) Part-15.org member list 3) WiNOG list 4) Any state lists generated due to state level reporting, taxation or registration 5) thelist.com (difficult to use... too many national vaporware providers claiming to provide in every area code) 6) onelasvegas.com (shows about 188 providers in Illinois alone) 7) http://www.dslreports.com/isplist?t=wireless (shows about 1,150 Wireless providers) 8) Part 15 WISP locator (478 wireless providers listed) 9) vendors (if any are willing/able to give out client info - doubtful) 10) each other - if each WISP within WISPA were to identify all of the WISPs that he knows about, that would go a long ways towards mapping out the nations WISP population. Realize that their is danger in collecting names because the list could be misused to solicit. On the other hand, a comprehensive list could also be used for legitimate reasons such as to inform of government regulation and to cross-promote each other's services. If every wireless ISP filed a form 477, the government would get a very clear picture of how many hundreds of thousands of miles of coverage WISPs provide this nation! - Larry Yunker - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:13 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] wisp survey Dylan Oliver wrote: I agree with Brian - a Pew Internet study would give the most respected results. Perhaps the other group wants to chip in. Best, You could probably get a University marketing professor to do it. Cost? Not much more than $500. Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] wisp survey
Sorry (Mac, Scriv, Marlon and others)... I didn't mean to stir things up. I really just wondered why there was talk about determining how many WISPs are out there. I think WISPA has the right idea about helping WISPs through lobbying and I now understand that the goal of gathering numbers of WISPs would be to simply to further that lobbying effort. Looking back to Marlon's orginal message, I should clarify that I don't see where I got the notion that anyone wanted to contact people or to encourage compliance. NOTHING MARLON SAID lead to that conclusion. I guess it was just MY OWN FRUSTRATION speaking... I'm frustrated to see that so few WISPs have complied with the filing requirements... I'd like to see more WISPs be informed about their responsibilities, but I would certainly draw the line at informing... compliance is still a business decision that must be made by each individual ISP. If an effort were to be made to inform WISPs of their obligations, I would leave it to the industry groups (WISPA, Part-15, or others) to decide if, how and when to proceed. - Larry \END THREAD - Original Message - From: Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:33 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] wisp survey Larry, Where the heck did you come up with those questions? I don't think WISPA is ever going to try to be a police organization, but we are already a lobbying group. I hate you even brought up such ridiculous notions as those you listed. Mac Behalf Of Larry Yunker: If WISPA can identify WISPs across the nation, then how can WISPA convince WISPs to self-report? Is WISPA planning to use strong-arm tactics (report or we'll report you) or is WISPA hoping to just inform WISPs of their federal obligations and hope for the best? Is there some other method that would lead to greater compliance without making WISPA look a private attorney-general? Larry Yunker - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 3:14 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] wisp survey The FCC has given some unlicensed spectrum, in part, to help make lower cost access and more access to broadband available in the US. Future access to more of this unlicensed spectrum will require some accountability by the FCC that unlicensed spectrum is helping to serve that purpose. By not filing we show less impact toward filling the digital divide and we are indirectly helping to justify criticism by others that unlicensed spectrum is not effectively serving the public interest in regard to broadband availability. Filling out the forms would help us to ask for and receive more spectrum and policy relief when needed in order to continue to advance the public interests of more access and lower cost access to broadband in the US. As of now Form 477 results show WISPs as serving less than 1% of the public with broadband. This is artificially low due to non-compliance by WISPs to fill out their forms. How can the FCC justify helping WISP interests if we cannot even show what we are doing to deliver broadband using the spectrum we have been given? How would the FCC helping us, in turn, help the public interest if there is no accountability that we are helping to serve the public interest? They (the FCC) are absolutely justified in their desire to see more WISPs fill out these forms and we should be complying with this. It is not a big brother issue at all. Form 477 is there to justify our representation in policy initiatives that we need to survive. One other issue is that it is a matter of the law. We are required to comply. Scriv Larry Yunker wrote: Marlon, I understand that the vast majority of WISPs have chosen not to file the 477 form (or in the alternative they just don't know that they are supposed to file). Just out of curiousity, what do you hope to accomplish by locating the thousands of non-compliant WISPs? Are you hoping to use this as-of-yet unidentified mass to evidence the difficulty of meeting the standard, or are you hoping to convince those non-compliant WISPs to join WISPA in its efforts to develop a workable standard? or are you just hoping to prove out the estimates that you have already provided to the FCC? Or is there some other driving force? Larry Yunker - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Principal WISPA Member List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:43 AM Subject: [WISPA] wisp survey Hi All, OK, we're not going to get most wisps to fill out the 477 any time soon. At least it's historically looking that way. 2 years ago I brow beat the major vendors and manufacturers into giving me the number of wisps that they show on the books and/or radios sold into the US market in the last 4 years. That effort lead
Re: [WISPA] Letters of Intent
The contents of a letter of intent will vary greatly depending upon what purpose you hope to serve through execution of the document. If I remember my Contracts course correctly, a letter of intent is not necessarily binding in any way (however, in the correct circumstances it might be made binding). The courts consider three different types of letters of intent: (1) agreements to agree - generally not inforceable (2) agreements with open terms - key points have been agreed upon and the parties are bound, but additional gaps can be filled by some other authoritative source if necessary (i.e. the UCC) (3) contract to negotiate - parties exchange promises to negotiate in goof faith. All contracts contain an implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing, but some courts have agreed that the letter of intent strengthens your position if there is a breach of good faith. The problem is that most courts have not decided this issue and/or refuse to hear it. FYI, as far as I know, the Washington state supreme court has refused to decide this issue. As a former owner of a WISP, the first document that I had drafted was a non-disclosure agreement. That document should help protect each party's interests with regards-to misappropriation of information and unfair trade practices while each side shares sensitive information and decides whether a purchase agreement is advisable. Best of Luck, Larry Yunker Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. DISCLAIMER - As a law student (not a lawyer), I must indicate that the information included in this document should not be construed to be legal advise. You are advised to seek out the assistance of a licensed attorney who practices within your jurisdiction. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 5:10 PM Subject: [WISPA] Letters of Intent Hello, Would any of your like to share a copy of a letter of intent to buy out another party? I have the chance to buy out another ISP/WISP. Thanks! ryan -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] salary
- Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] salary Check with your CPA on that. The IRS likes to see salary and other activities that represent that your company really is a company and not a tax shelter so that you avoid the sole proprietor tax schedule. (It's called piercing the veil -- if you don't have minutes and annual shareholder meetings and run it like a business, you lose the corporate shield for tax purposes AND for liability as in civil litigation). I think you are on the mark here... according to what I picked up through my Business Planning coursework, the IRS has fairly consistently applied a reasonableness test to the salary of a CEO who is also a majority shareholder. But reasonable is a fairly broad term. Zero would not be reasonable in any case, but $10,000 or more might meet the reasonableness standard for companies with limited revenues. On the other hand, if your company is turning $1MM in sales, you better be paying your full time CEO substantially more than $10,000 because the IRS will see right through that ploy. In addition, if you try to pay the CEO through an incentive program (dividends or stock options) in lieu of salary, the IRS will treat the capital-gains as real income and will tax the CEO at the higher personal rate. You have to provide a balance of salary and other non-salary incentives in order to get the maximum tax advantage. - Larry -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] salary
IF your company is making money, the salary that you pay the CEO (assuming that you ARE the CEO) is really highly dependent on tax liability. If you have your company set up as a pass-through tax entity such as a LLC, S Corporation, or god forbid a plain-jane partnership, then you are getting taxed directly on the organizations revenues. You need to make sure that you pay yourself a living wage + enough to cover your tax liability on the organization's revenue. Aside from that, you are just as well off if you leave the money in the company as if you took the money out of the company. If you leave money in the company, you still own that money as equity in the company as retained earnings. On the other hand, if you are set up a C-corp, there are entirely different considerations as how to determine your salary. We all know that a C-corp is a non-pass-through tax entity. Therefore, any net profit before taxes are taxed at the company's tax rate and then taxed again if the company makes a distribution to you as a stockholder in the form of a dividend. Your first instinct would be to give yourself a big salary in order to minimize the tax burden of the company. However, you might find that the company has a lower tax rate than you do personally. Therefore, there are circumstances, especially with small closely-held corporations where it makes most sense to grant yourself a small salary and then give yourself a big dividend to take advantage of the 15% capital gains tax-rate. There are also some methods for granting yourself stock options that yield an expense for the company and at the same time provide a capital gains distribution to you as an employee. The bottom line is that the number you pay your CEO should be determined not only by what your company can currently bear but also upon what will protect your equity from the taxman. What other company's pay their CEO shouldn't really figure into the equation. It's more important that you figure out how to retain your equity/earnings and at the same time provide sufficient funding for the growth and prosperity of your business. Larry Yunker Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 7:55 PM Subject: [WISPA] salary Hi, Just taking a quick survey... answer if you can, but be honest... ;) What is the salary of the CEO of your ISP? Even if you can share the percentage of that salary compared to annual gross revenue... Travis Microserv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] I missed billing a customer for 15 months !
Your story points out that there is a difference between being RIGHT and WINNING. Here, the ISP was RIGHT and won judgment in the court of law. But they LOST in the economic terms. This is definately something every ISP should consider long and hard before suing a client. - Larry Yunker - Original Message - From: Kurt Fankhauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 12:54 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] I missed billing a customer for 15 months ! A local dial up provider in town here missed billing a client for 2 years. The owner contacted the guy and he refused to pay $400. The owner took him to court. The client said he never got billed and shouldn't have to pay. The The judge said If you didn't use it then you shouldn't have to pay but since you accessed the service multiple times over the 2 years you have to pay. The guy was ordered in court to pay and he did. Needless to say the ISP owner lost that client from his subscriber base. The ISP looked really bad and I am sure that has deterred some people from going with his service. You may ask how I know all this Well that client switched to my service now. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC 114 S. Walnut St. Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jenco Wireless Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 6:27 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] I missed billing a customer for 15 months ! I just sent him an e-mail: Hello Mr. XXX . We just did a review of our credit card billing and realized that we have not successfully billed your account since 7/26/05. Our credit card service tried to bill you a few times (6), but for some reason was declined payment. Due to the timing of the catastrophic lightning strike we had in August '05, we did not catch this situation. We realize that some of this is our issue, since we did not catch it, but some may be on your end as well for the same reason (not noticing the fact that a charge for our service has not been incurred for the last 15 months). We would like to know your thoughts on how you think we should proceed with this? Thank you, Me ** Note - Why do the people who seem to be the nicest you have ever met seem to turn in to the biggest a-holes as soon as there is a 1 second glitch in their otherwise perfect Internet service :-) :-) ** On 12/10/06, Jenco Wireless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks everyone ! On 12/10/06, Scott Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would also go to customer and explain what happened. Most people expect to pay for what they get. I would probably accept what ever he offered, but if less than 1/2, I might suggest the 1/2. Jenco Wireless wrote: Hi. About 15 months ago I had my main tower get hit by lightning (catastrophic hit). It took me a little while to get all of the bugs worked out with the repairs. During this time I had a customer's credit card get declined. I deactivated his card, then forgot to move him to our invoicing system. He never called to say hey - I'm not getting billed (imagine that), and I just now did a credit card check to find this problem. What would you do? a) My mistake - let it go. Bill him from the current month. b) Try to bill his CC for the full amount (ouch!!) (Our customers sign an agreement that we will automatically bill their CC monthly). c) Send him a bill for the full amount. d) Disconnect his service and let the past un-charges slide, then charge him $200 to reconnect his service. e) Any other ideas? I am opting for a above because it was my mistake. Thanks, Brad H -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.15/581 - Release Date: 12/9/2006 3:41 PM -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.15/581 - Release Date: 12/9/2006 3:41 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.15/581 - Release Date: 12/9/2006 3:41 PM -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] AlphaShield announces WiFi router with 1.2M square footcoverage
A regular Linksys BEFW11 (standard best-buy type router) claims 300ft range indoors and 1500ft outdoors. AlphaShild's 1.2M sq foot coverage sounds impressive, but if I'm not mistaken, that would amount to roughly 1095ft x 1095ft. That's not terribly better than the Linksys. - Larry - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 5:29 AM Subject: [WISPA] AlphaShield announces WiFi router with 1.2M square footcoverage AlphaShield announces WiFi router with 1.2M square foot coverage Posted Dec 7th 2006 6:46PM by Donald Melanson Filed under: Wireless Canadian company AlphaShield has taken the wraps off its new AS-8800 wireless router, promising a mighty 1.2 million square feet of coverage (in ideal conditions, no doubt). Supposedly, the router's Power-G technology (not to be confused with Super-G, Xtreme-G, or Kenny G) gives it up to 20 times more power than traditional routers, allowing for the wireless signal to pass through concrete walls with ease and giving you speeds up to 108Mbps over a distance of 1,200 feet indoors and 3,900 feet outdoors. To round out the package, AlphaShield's also outfitted the router with no less than five Gigabet Ethernet ports, as well as a firewall, USB print server, and VPN support, among other standard router features. You'll have to wait a bit to put all that range to the test yourself, however, with the router set to launch in January for $250. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] America's InternetDisconnect
Peter R. wrote: FCC Commissioner Mike Copps writes an editorial for the Wash. Post http://tinyurl.com/ymuanq America's Internet Disconnect By Michael J. Copps Wednesday, November 8, 2006; Page A27 America's record in expanding broadband communication is so poor that it should be viewed as an outrage by every consumer and businessperson in the country. Too few of us have broadband connections, and those who do pay too much for service that is too slow. It's hurting our economy, and things are only going to get worse if we don't do something about it. Where was he on net neutrality? Where was he when ATT and Bellsouth merged? Is he just blowin' more smoke? Or did he just wake up from a six-year slumber? He was in the 2 person minority on a 5 person commission... he couldn't act. I suspect that now that their has been a shift of power in Washington, he will be a more vocal dissent... After all, if the Democrats take the Whitehouse in 2008, the new president will be appointing a new FCC Chairman. - Larry -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 900MHz Omni and gain
900Mhz noise sources: 1) Paging Systems 2) Other 900Mhz-based Broadband providers 3) Cordless Telephones 4) SCADA (utility monitoring and management systems) 5) Meter Readers 6) Power or Pipeline Companies (often used for non-SCADA-based monitoring) 7) Other consumer devices (baby monitors, cordless headphones, cordless speakers) 8) licensed usage of segments of 902-928Mhz 9) Old cell towers? - Larry - Original Message - From: Brian Rohrbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Joe Laura [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 12:39 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 900MHz Omni and gain I hear this talk about the 900MHz noise. It's not too bad here. Moving forward, what are the new sources of 900MHz noise if my area is ok now? I hear a lot about pagers. Pagers!? What are those? LOL Are there new paging sites going online? I'm just looking for what will cause me trouble in the future. Brian Joe Laura wrote: Sectors are also great for helping with interference. I guess if your spectrum is clean and you think it will stay that way then an omni would be fine. Superior Wireless New Orleans,La. www.superior1.com - Original Message - From: Brian Rohrbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 11:29 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 900MHz Omni and gain Problem is I might only get 10-15 subs at these sites in the next year. Lets say I can buy 10 APs. I'd rather have 10 sites with omni's than 5 sites with 180* sectors. At 15 subs a site I'd have 150 subs on 10 omni's at $35 a month. That is $5250 a month. If I sectorize 5 sites with 15 subs that is 75 subs and only $2625 added to the monthly income. Back to reality. I can't afford 10 APs.but still, I don't see sectors as being such a great thing. What is the point of doubling the cost of a pop for no gain of subscribers? Back to my question. If a guy wanted to use omni's for 900. What is a good choice? Brian Chris Cooper wrote: We have a legacy 900 omni at 750' AGL. It really reaches out and touches remote customers, but it is visible to every other cell in the region and affects channel planning. Stick to sectors, they might be more expensive up front but long term you will have more options. c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 7:40 PM To: Barry at Mutual Data; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 900MHz Omni and gain Due to the eirp limits at 900 (36dB total) your antenna choice really should take into account the radio gain first. Having said that, a lot of people put in the high gain 900 omni antennas and don't seem to have much trouble with them. I agree with the sector idea though. The 900 that I'm using now is trango. They have almost got the full eirp built right in to the radio/antenna system as it comes from the factory. The down side is that it takes 6 ap's to cover 360*. That can get spendy. Especially if you pay rent per antenna. As a rule, we are sectorizing more and more sites these days. Even the ones out in the sticks. There are too many other users out there showing up all of the time. latetrs, marlon - Original Message - From: Barry at Mutual Data [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 6:01 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 900MHz Omni and gain Hello Brian, No more then 8db in my playbook anymore. And horz. if at all possible. Sectors on 900 is the best way to go too. I got an Antel 11db with downtilt that I would sell if you really want a vertical omni. Heavy duty antenna. Barry Tuesday, November 7, 2006, 8:20:28 AM, you wrote: BR I looking for input on what vertical 900 omni to use. I have heard BR statements from Marlon like I'd never use a 2.4 omni over such and such BR gain., because of the beamwidth and such. Anyway what are the BR opinions of the use of the 900 omni? BR http://www.pacwireless.com/products/omni_900mhz.shtml BR Brian -- Best regards, Barrymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.27/517 - Release Date: 11/3/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
Re: [WISPA] 900MHz Omni and gain
Larry Yunker wrote: 900Mhz noise sources: 1) Paging Systems is is likely new sites are being deployed? It is likely that SOMEONE has already licensed the spectrum... If there is a market for pager services, they will eventually deploy. If there is no perceived market, they will likely sit on the license until forced to give it up. 2) Other 900Mhz-based Broadband providers should be able to channel plan and work with them You can work with them if: (1) they don't drop in a Canopy Cluster (2) they don't use an Alvarion or other FREQUENCY HOPPING type radio 3) Cordless Telephones shouldn't effect me THAT much Cordless Telephones are usually only a problem when houses are grouped close together. One of the biggest problems that I experienced with 900Mhz was when we would hook up a client INSIDE a neighborhood and later find out that his neighbor had a 900Mhz cordless phone. Every time that the neighbor would receive a call, my client would lose signal. AND for those lurking this particular link was a Waverider showing -70 RSSI with a -90+ noise floor. The damn cordless phone was the ONLY problem with the link. 4) SCADA (utility monitoring and management systems) should be able to channel plan and work with them Most SCADA systems are FREQUENCY HOPPING... you can't plan around those. 5) Meter Readers shouldn't this only be in city limits? I've only seen 900Mhz meter-readers within a city-limits. As long as you are broadcasting and receiving a few miles outside of the nearest city, you probably won't have issues. 6) Power or Pipeline Companies (often used for non-SCADA-based monitoring) don't know about this one Get a 900Mhz spectrum analyzer and drive your area or better yet connect it to an antenna up HIGH on the tower that you plan on using... see what kind of noise you see. 7) Other consumer devices (baby monitors, cordless headphones, cordless speakers) shouldn't effect me THAT much The only consumer device that ever knocked me out was the cordless phones... but I did have to tell a customer not to use his cordless headphones while on the internet... the 900mhz cordless headphones were causing packet-loss. 8) licensed usage of segments of 902-928Mhz don't know what is in my area Look it up on the FCC web site. 9) Old cell towers? not here. We just got cell service. Too rural to have old technology anything No OLD Analog cell service? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] So, ya'll wondered who'd be the first to comment
This should not be a big surprise. The Democratic Party's platform has always yielded higher taxes. This story just shows one of many ways that a Democratic-lead Congress is likely to spread-the-hurt. Sorry folks, but it is a grim day in my opinion. Taxes are going up, cost-of-business is going up. Regulation is going up. I know that a lot of Americans are tired of the war and would like to see a more active social or economic agenda in Washington... but allowing Congress to be harsh on business and harsh on consumers will just serve to put us back in a recession. - Larry - Original Message - From: chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 11:20 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] So, ya'll wondered who'd be the first to comment ...And here I thought the big red bullseye was painted on the middle east. So far we have dumped $341 billion down that shaft -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 12:09 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] So, ya'll wondered who'd be the first to comment http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227778,00.html You just got a big red bullseye painted on your back. While Im not trying to be partisan... YOU are the main target. Whether it's digging into your pocket for benefits congress wants to give your employees, to just shafting you as hard and deep as possible for tax money, we ARE the target. I'd love to see some good informed financial advisors on here give some advice on how to deal with the future. +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.32/523 - Release Date: 11/7/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] So, ya'll wondered who'd be the first to comment
So how do you duck for cover? Re-incorporate as a foreign owned/based business? Our legislature seems to be fine with allowing the mortgaging of america to foreign entities. If you can somehow become a foreign entity, you can probably avoid all sorts of tax liability. No... I'm not really advocating this method of tax dodge. I'm just frustrated at those that would repeal the tax breaks that have made the small business sector flurish over the two past decades. It has been shown that small businesses account for more new job growth than big business. So why target us? If you seriously are concerned about tax liability and changes to the tax code, your first step should be to seek out a CPA or Tax Attorney. They can tell you how to take advantage of tax breaks in the code and can tell you when those tax breaks go away (if they have sun-set provisions). The 179 deduction, the estate-tax breaks, the capital-gains tax breaks, and various other incentives to invest have deadlines after which they either must be renewed or they go back to the old-higher rates. That is huge when it comes to capital gains. For instance: If you were to sell your business today and qualify for long-term capital gains, you would pay 15% on the capital gains portion of the sale. But if five years from now, the capital gains tax goes back to the old rate, you will get hit for over 30% if I'm not mistaken. I'll have more definitive examples tomorrow as I start cramming for my Accounting Financial Statements for Lawyers exam. - Larry -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen
While filters can help, the problem that I see is that filters are: 1) expensive and 2) bulky. Last time I checked, a cavity filter for the 902-928 range was roughly $300-$400. I don't see it being practical to install one of these at every customer site! Cavity filters are fine for your broadcast sites, but that is of little help when the 900Mhz paging systems bleed over so much that they deafen the subscriber radios. - Larry - Original Message - From: Mike Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:32 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen Filters fix this problem quite handily. We recommend one on every system needed or not. I don't see an issue here. Mike At 07:07 PM 10/26/2006, you wrote: ISM 902-928. Exact band and Power limit is relevant. Currently, the top 25% of ISM 900 bandwidth (channel 4) is unusable, in MANY areas, due to blead over from 930 Licensed high power gear (500W). If the same thing were to occur at the lower portion of 900 ISM bandwdith, it could kill Channel 1 also, horribly effecting WISPs using unlicenced. They also may be requesting to use higher power on the actual ISM bands, argueing Public Safety is more important than unlicensed use. Iftheir request is granted, specifics should be lsited on how they are going to prevent interference with existing unlicensed band users. Remember that the goal may not only be to use the spectrum. They have benefit in killing off all the 900Mhz WISPs, that could compete with Sprint/Nextel Next generation WiMax type Licensed 700M-900M solutions. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband Mike Cowan Wireless Connections A Division of ACC 166 Milan Ave Norwalk, OH 44857 419-660-6100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.wirelessconnections.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results
What antenna/cable solution are you using on the client side of the link? How far are you trying to shoot? - Larry - Original Message - From: Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 2:04 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: Vertical and horizontal were tried. The results are the same. Thanks Lonnie...we're trying some Mikrotik with the 900 cards and not having much luck through the trees using a 900 120* sector H-pol Leon Lonnie On 9/17/06, *Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: http://forums.star-os.com/showthread.php?t=5838 I just posted our early rsults of the 900 MHz gear. Needless to say this is better than I was hoping for and this stuff has a FIRM place in our tool chest. Forget higher power on 2.4 GHz to get through some trees. This is truly NON LOS. Hi Lonnie...what polarization did you use? Thanks leon -- *Leon Zetekoff* Proprietor *Work:* 484-335-9920 *Mobile:* 610-223-8642 *Fax:* 484-335-9921 *Email:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *http://www.linkedin.com/in/leonzetekoff* *BackWoods Wireless* http://www.backwoodswireless.net 505 B Main Street http://maps.google.com/maps?q=505+B+Main+Street%2CBlandon%2CPA+19510hl=en Blandon, PA 19510 Bringing Broadband Technology to Rural Areas See who we know in common http://www.linkedin.com/e/wwk/1265359/ Want a signature like this? http://www.linkedin.com/e/sig/1265359/ -- 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/ http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- *Leon Zetekoff* Proprietor *Work:* 484-335-9920 *Mobile:* 610-223-8642 *Fax:* 484-335-9921 *Email:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *http://www.linkedin.com/in/leonzetekoff* *BackWoods Wireless* http://www.backwoodswireless.net 505 B Main Street http://maps.google.com/maps?q=505+B+Main+Street%2CBlandon%2CPA+19510hl=en Blandon, PA 19510 Bringing Broadband Technology to Rural Areas See who we know in common http://www.linkedin.com/e/wwk/1265359/ Want a signature like this? http://www.linkedin.com/e/sig/1265359/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results
How much difference are you seeing? 2db or more? - Original Message - From: Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Larry Yunker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results Larry Yunker wrote: Let us know more about the configuration(s) and maybe we can figure out what else you should try. OK here's the Sector antenna: http://www.teletronics.com/tant900sector12-5dbi.html The yagi's are PacWireless YA9-13 Interesting that at the customer with the yagi in the attic, the CPE-tower signal was weaker than the tower-CPE signal. Both running the Ubiquiti 900 cards on a RB112 and the sector antenna is 12.5 db gain so you would think the signals at each end should be pretty close. THanks leon -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] I need Mikrotik Help
Ron, When the number of active connections for any single user exceeds about 10 to 15 simultaneous connections, you generally have one of two things occurring. Either the subscriber has been infected by some sort of virus/spyware or the customer is running some sort of peer-to-peer networking software (i.e. Kaaza, winMX, Limewire, Bittorrent, etc, etc, etc). Either of these situations will result in increased latency and decreased overall available network throughput on the Canopy systems. On the Tranzeo system, the effect is far worse. Since Tranzeo is 802.11b based, there is no polling mechanism to ensure timely delivery of packets. the effect of a continuous streams ofoutboundtrafficis dropped packets. Dropped packets means timed-out web pages and dropped email sessions. It gets far worse when you start dealing with games and VoIP. Even 1% packet loss can result in unusable games. Likewise, the very slightest IP interruption can make VoIP sessions experience jitter, echoing, and garbled signal. It is important that you determine the specific customers that are causing the excessive streams. Look at the ports in use and the destination addresses. Determine if the traffic is likely P-t-P or an infection. If it's P-t-P, you should be able to control the volume of the traffic by using the P-t-P throttling mechanisms available through the Mikrotik software. If it's an infection, you shoulddisassociate the user from your AP's until the infection can be resolved. If you simply firewall the outbound traffic, you probably won't solve anything.Many infections cause the PC to continuously send out packets regardless ofwhether those packets ever arrive at a valid destination. Therefore, the infection will keepsending/flooding your AP even if you block the subscriber from successfully reaching the internet viaa Mikrotik firewall. Larry Yunker Network Consultant WISP Advantage [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Ron Wallace To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 6:24 AM Subject: [WISPA] I need Mikrotik Help To all, I have some abusive users, when I look at IP Firewall Connections I find asomeusers with over a hundred (100) instances listed in the source address column. I think its flooding my network. I have 2 T1's and 81 users. We're growing faster than I can install new customers. I am using Canopy 900, Canopy 2.45, Tranzeo 2.45. I have activated the SM, SNMP, BOOTP Server and Client filters on the canopy devices. How can I limit the number of active instances of these abusive users on the Mikrotik? Ron Wallace Hahnron, Inc. 220 S. Jackson Dt. Addison, MI 49220 Phone: (517)547-8410 Mobile: (517)605-4542 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
ATT and VZ can't de-peer for another 17 months, so we have that long before it becomes imminent. Where did the 17 month timeframe come from? AFAIK, without Net Neutrality legislation, there is nothing stopping the big guys from pulling the rug out from under the rest of us TODAY. If you are suggesting that they MUST peer because of a RFC or contract, you are mistaken. RFC's have no binding authority at law and contracts can and often are breached if the result of the breach will bring the breaching party a windfall. If there is one thing that was made abundently clear in Contracts class it is that there are no punitive damages in contracts sometimes it just makes sense to breach. If ATT can make billions in tiered-access charges by de-peering with the rest of the globe they will and they will do it as soon as they feel the time is right. No RFC and no contract will limit them. Until there is a LAW with real teeth prohibiting de-peering they can do whatever they want. (Real teeth = more than a grant to the FCC to investigate potential abuse. Oversight committees are useless without standards to uphold IMHO.) - Larry -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
Turn off the option to compose E-mail in
HTML.
- Original Message -
From:
Tom
DeReggi
To: WISPA General List
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:34
PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In
Against Net Neutrality
Actually,
My Outlook Express does the same thing when I
reply. I hate it. But I do not know how to turn it
off.
Does any one know how to turn off the feature
that includes the bar on the left, when I reply myself?
Tom DeReggiRapidDSL Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless
Broadband
- Original Message -
From:
Rich Comroe
To: WISPA General List
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:07
PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In
Against Net Neutrality
why do you do it?
I'm a top poster. I hate having to
essentially re-read the previous email to find the added reply comments
(especially when it's a long email and you ultimately just find an added
"yeah me too" way down at the bottom). I find that incredibly
annoying. I prefer replies where you pick-out what you're replying to
and copy it to the top along with your reply. Concise. The
originals are all there below for reference if you want them, but you don't
have to scroll down to find the reply. You can more clearly see the
chain of replies too(when each reply edits the same body, it quickly
becomes impossible).
I know it's a religious preference / argument
and there's no right or wrong, only a preference... but
youwanted to know"why", so ...
peace
Rich
- Original Message -
From:
Mark
Koskenmaki
To: WISPA General List
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:17
PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In
Against Net Neutrality
You guys that post using this incredibly
annoying bar at the left... why do you do it? It makes c
onversational email impossible...
Read on below. comments are
prefaced with
North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061personal
correspondence to: mark at neofast dot netsales inquiries
to: purchasing at neofast dot netFast Internet, NO
WIRES!-
- Original Message -
From:
David Sovereen
To: WISPA General List
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:37
PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In
Against Net Neutrality
I respectfully disagree and think that
WCA's position of less regulation and allowing network operators operate
their networks how they want is the right approach. Net neutrality
legislation opens the door for content companies and your subscribers to
force open and equal access to all content on the Internet.
I don't see
the problem with content companies and subscribers having equal access
to each other. That, after all... IS WHAT I
PROVIDE!
How many WISPs on this listare
limiting P2P traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite... I
am.
Me too, but this has
little to do with net neutrality, since peer to peer sharing involves
HOSTING, and that I specifically don't generally allow.
Terms of Service has covered hosting forever - since long before Napster
was someone's dream.
How many WISPs on this list are
prioritizing VoIP traffic separate from other traffic? I'll
bite. I am. And I only prioritize VoIP traffic to and from
my own VoIP servers and not VoIP traffic from Vonage or anyone
else.
I will
eventually, and I will be entirely neutral as to whose servers it goes
to...after all, if I can't serve my customer's needs, then what
the heck am I? A fraud?
How many WISPs on this list are filtering
NetBIOS, RPC, and other traffic deemed malicious? I'll bite... I
am again.
Yeah. Me too. Again, this has nothing whatsoever
to do with limiting access to content.
Now the last one, I can't imagine being
sued over, but I hope you see my point.
These controls are important for me to
manage my network and ensure a quality of service my customers
expect.
Net neutrality takes these controls
away.
I seriously doubt
that.
Dave
989-837-3790 x 151989-837-3780 fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]www.mercury.net
129 Ashman St, Midland, MI 48640
- Original Message -
From:
Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
Dave, I can see your points and I agree that OVER-regulation could lead to the sort of harms that you list. Unfortunately, the alternative of NO-regulation would enablebackbone providers of the internet toweed out the smaller providers by deprioritizing traffic, blocking ports, charging tolls, etc. I think that the correct course would be a MIDDLE GROUND of regulation which would differentiate between backbone neutrality and last-mile neutrality. Since the success of the internethas long beenbased on the premise of non-discriminatory peered-backbone access, I think the goal should be toprohibit backbone providers from discriminating based on type-of traffic, source-of traffic, or destination-of traffic. This means that in an ideal scenario, the government would prevent the likes of L3/ATT/Verizon from even looking at the type of traffic that is flowing through the backbone. They don't need to know what the traffic is. Rather,their business is to get that traffic from point A to point B and make sure that there is switching/routing capacity. They shouldnot be positioned to decideWHO gets to have the best routes or WHO gets to have the fastest response time. If this is allowed, the only providers left standing in 2010 will be the backbone providers themselves (anyone that has EVER dealt with a RBOC as a competitor should be able to attest to the fact that RBOCs sell their own services to themselves MUCH cheaper than they sell those services to their competitors). I realize that taking this stance against "Tiered-Access Internet" forecloses on all of the promised INNOVATIONS that will lead totrueend-to-end QoSon the public internet. Yet, I'd rather havetoday's internet with non-discriminatory routing rather than"tomorrow's internet"monopolized by Ma-Bell. Please note:I think that last-mile providers ought to be free to offer whatever limited/prioritized/deprioritized traffic TO THEIR OWN SUBSCRIBERS as they deem necessary. If you want to blockyour own subscribers from getting P-to-P traffic, running servers, or downloading moviesthatshould be your prerogative.Perhaps you should be requiredto disclose this "limited-access" internet service to your subscribers, but you should be free to set up your ownpolicies regardingthe traffic that flows to/from YOUR OWN CLIENTS. I see no reason that the government needs to regulate this sort of activity beyond requiring ISPs to divulge content filtering/blocking policies. I figure it this way: if you are a last-mile internet provider and you are blocking content to/from your clients, the clientsusually have to opportunity to switch to another provider. IF you are the only provider of service in the area, thenone could argue that free market economics will drive new competitors to enter if/when there are enough unsatisfied customers. The core policy reason to regulate backbone providers is to ensure that internet traffic can continue to freely travel the globe without unnecessary limitations. This same policy reason does not apply to last-mile providers because end-users/consumers/content-providers can all CHOOSE their last-mile provider whereas we cannot choose the path that our packets take when crossing the backbone of the internet! The real question is whether we can get legislators to understand this CRUCIAL difference. - Larry - Original Message - From: David Sovereen To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:37 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's position of less regulation and allowing network operators operate their networks how they want is the right approach. Net neutrality legislation opens the door for content companies and your subscribers to force open and equal access to all content on the Internet. How many WISPs on this listare limiting P2P traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite... I am. How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP traffic separate from other traffic? I'll bite. I am. And I only prioritize VoIP traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP traffic from Vonage or anyone else. How many WISPs on this list are filtering NetBIOS, RPC, and other traffic deemed malicious? I'll bite... I am again. Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued over, but I hope you see my point. These controls are important for me to manage my network and ensure a quality of service my customers expect. Net neutrality takes these controls away. Dave 989-837-3790 x 151989-837-3780 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED]www.mercury.net 129 Ashman St, Midland, MI 48640 - Original Message - From: Larry Yunker To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Agai
Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering
Before you talk about VoIP technology/deployment issues, you might want to address your deployment amechanism. What technology are you planning to use in order to deploy your broadband? Wireless, I would assume? If so, what hardware? Choosing the right type of hardware on the last-mile is critical to making VoIP work. After you decide on a robust wireless system, you can choose among many VoIP solutions. VoIP can range from simple POTS-Like services (dial-tone, caller-id, call-waiting) to full PBX key-system like services with conference-calling, automated attendant, intra-office transfer, etc. You can even decide how much of the system you want to maintain versus how much you want to outsource. With certain open source VoIP solutions available, you can build your own VoIP server or at the other extreme, you can simply purchase VoIP SIP-compliant phones or ATA's and use a completely outsourced gateway. You should probably consider where you want to be the VAR and where you simply want to be a reseller. Is the primary value of your service going to be broadband-access or voice-services? Larry Yunker Wireless Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 10:00 AM Subject: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering With last week's discussion on the ability of different product lines to support simultaneous VoIP calls, I'd like to start a discussion on VoIP as a service offering. First, a little introduction. I'm in the planning stages of an ISP. I intend to target small/medium businesses (no residential) in an area that is served with other technologies (DSL). I am currently working part time doing IT for a group of small businesses, and was just about sold on a WISP last year that offered a voice/data plan as a package that would have saved money. We ended up not switching after reading about some of the pending lawsuits against the service provider! What I am trying to figure out is the best way to offer VoIP services to my customers. My main selling points on my Internet services will be reliability, service, and flexibility. And yes, I do intend to back these up. In the small business sector, it will be much easier to sell a highly reliable Internet connection to a customer if it's providing more than just access for lunchtime web browsing. Integrating voice and data will both save the customer money and justify the cost of the dedicated Internet line. So, how are the service providers out there doing it now? Acting as a reseller for a larger VoIP provider? Do you offer customers any PBX-like features or just dial access? Looking for suggestions, things to avoid, and a little experience here. Thanks! Patrick -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MobilePro Ditches Sacramento
Sounds to me like the original contract wasn't a contract. Otherwise, MobilePro would have grounds for breach and there doesn't appear to be any lawsuit pending. I'm guessing that MobilePro was in the process of providing a proof-of-concept in order to secure a contract. - Larry - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 9:44 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MobilePro Ditches Sacramento Interesting that the city changed the contract after the fact. George Peter R. wrote: MobilePro Ditches Muni Mesh Project http://www.telecomweb.com/tnd/17055.html Wireless data specialist MobilePro this morning walked away from its contract to build a citywide Wi-Fi mesh in Sacramento, Calif. - only two months after the first test system went live - in what looks to be an acrimonious disagreement with city officials over the economics behind the deal. MobilePro says the city blindsided it with new contract requirements that would require it to give away high-speed service for which it had planned to charge. In addition, the company says the city has withdrawn guarantees that the company would serve as anchor tenant for the network in order to provide the revenue to provide lower-speed service to economically disadvantaged residents. MobilePro won the Sacramento contract last year, beating Motorola and ATT (then known as SBC) for the business. The plan called for a mesh that initially covered Sacramento's downtown, Old Town and state-capital areas - an area of about 10 square miles - with the entire city to eventually be built out in phases. MobilePro was to provide various free and fee-based services with secure high-speed data, voice and video throughout the planned coverage area. Subscriptions were to be sold on an annual, monthly, daily and hourly basis. Multiple Internet service providers (ISPs) were to be allowed to sell their services over the network. The entire project, MobilePro says, was to be based on its massive project in Arizona, which started in the city of Tempe and which has since grown to include neighboring municipalities to create a muni mesh sprawling across 187 miles of Arizona, the largest so far seen (TelecomWeb news break, March 16). After what MobilePro termed a lengthy permitting process, it finally launched its first pilot test in April in an area around the city's Caesar Chavez Plaza park. The pilot launch included a ribbon-cutting ceremony, with local politicians mouthing predictable platitudes about cutting the wire and the importance of the whole thing to the city and its residents, students, visitors and businesses. Meanwhile, things weren't going smoothly behind the scenes. MobilePro says the city sent it a counter proposal requiring that the company establish a free high-speed wireless network supported almost exclusively by advertising revenue without the benefit of the city serving as an anchor tenant. Such a demand directly conflicts with the original plan, according to a .PDF presentation on the Sacramento City Web site. In that presentation, the city outlined a project with free 56 Kb/s service, but residential service priced at $20 month for 1 Mb/s and $30 per month for 1.5 Mb/s; higher prices were detailed for business service or service that includes VoIP. There also was a somewhat sneaky price plan of $4 for one hour of service - an emerging tactic in the industry that can zing a single shot user with what is really an astronomical fee for a few bits of data - but just $6 for an entire day or $10 for a week. Based on the company's successful Tempe, Ariz., model, MobilePro's original proposal provided for limited-area, limited-bandwidth, no-cost service but required higher- bandwidth broadband users to pay a monthly fee, the company says, adding it also offered an alternative designed to close the 'digital divide' to the city's low-income quintile of residents, which included the city serving as an anchor tenant, but this proposal was likewise rejected by the city. Thus, the company says, it has now rejected the city as a customer. MobilePro President and COO Jerry Sullivan, in a prepared statement explaining the decision, said, It is our understanding based on the final request of the City of Sacramento that the city would require MobilePro to provide free high-speed wireless Internet service to all residents and have the company rely primarily on advertising revenues for its profits and returns on investment. Based upon MobilePro's research and experience as one of the leading Wi-Fi broadband wireless network service providers to municipalities in North America, MobilePro does not believe that an advertising-supported business case is financially sustainable. At this time, we view such a restrictive economic model as incompatible with our original long-term plans for both the residents of
Re: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this?
It may seem like a 'no brainer' to you, but since when did an idea being brain-dead-stupid stop the government from trying or actually enforcing it? There is one common thread that runs through all things government does when it is seeking to help the common folk - a complete and total lack of common sense. Does Mr Gonzales or the FBI care a whit about, or even KNOW anything about what it would take to do what they ask? No, of course not. I doubt quite seriously that any heads of executive branch departments realize that broadband/internet services are sometimes/often? provided by companies with a staff of less than ten and gross revenues less than $1MM annually. Most Washington beaurocratics live in a box and believe the line of bull that the Bell's and the Cable-Ops feed them. That is to say that the likes of Ma-Bell or Comcast created the internet and there aren't very many of the rouge ISPs around anymore. They might as well just treat the industry like there are 10 players: Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, ATT, Bell South, Qwest, Sprint, MSN, Earthlink, and AOL. The rest of us are a bunch of renegades providing internet using tin-cans and string or pringles-cans and duct-tape. Thats why government thinks nothing of mandating logging/snooping/data retention for ISPs. They just don't recognize that the internet was formed by small mom-n-pop ISPs and that a fairly sizable chunk of internet access is still handled by the little guys. - Larry -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
