> Phone carriers say it's unfair for them to invest more in network
> infrastructure to carry Internet firms' content if they can't make more
> money as the middleman.
What's the problem with a usage-based fee structure? That's the obvious
way to make more in the middle. Move more bits, make more
Jar heads make good wisp……….lol I R one
Chuck Moses
HIGH DESERT WIRELESS BROADBAND COMMUNICATION
16922 Airport Blvd # 3
Mojave CA 93501
661 824 3431 office
818 406 6818 cell
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Marlon K. Schafer
Sent: Thur
Steve said:
>You've finally come around to this view John, and you'll discover that
you have a lot of company in > that view - which isn't (widely)
represented on this list or necessarily within WISPA.
I did not "finally come around" Steve. For the record, I wanted VL at
the time I bought
- Original Message -
From: "John Oram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Marlon Schafer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 6:17 PM
Subject: Google, eBay and Amazon may build their own wireless Internet
http://www.investors.com/editoria
Nothing I know of that fits your needs. Other than a 5 gig wifi platform.
If you can come up with more money ($3500ish should do) then you might look
at Airaya. They use the 802.11a chips but put their own mac on them.
Better protocol that way.
Next step up would probably be Redline then Or
And lets not forget about all of the really nice things that Motorola does
for the WISP industry at the FCC.
NOT
marlon
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Larsen - Lists" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best syst
Get a 2.4 ap and a couple of cpe kits and do a small test install. If it
looks good buy more.
One of the first things we'd need to know in order to really help you out
would be more info on what your competition is doing
marlon
- Original Message -
From: "Richard Goodin" <[EMAIL
A jar head? As a WISP? What's the world coming to?
marlon
cackle
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 8:22
AM
Subject: [WISPA] Anyone Hiring?
Michael D. Lake4112 Berkshire Dr.Sarasota, FL. 34241(94
http://www.techexcess.net/apc-protectnet-ethernet-surge-protector-pnet1.aspx
Just bumped into those the other day. Gonna try a few out.
marlon
- Original Message -
From: "Brian Rohrbacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List"
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006
Travis,
I agree my explanation is not complete regarding detail working of the
protocols, and see your logic in your response, that what would FTP do if
TCP already took care of it already. However, it doesn't work that way
exactly. Does TCP fully take care of it? There are limits on how TCP
I was thinking I would be the devils advocate, and ask this question:
Why go thru all the hassle of learning Mikrotik(Which, IMHO, Is a PITA),
when You can save the learning curve, and use Tranzeo, Deliberant or
even HighGain Antennas solutions that are cheap and easy to administer
and a M0n0wa
At its monthly open meeting earlier today, the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) approved plans to reallocate spectrum below 3 GHz now
earmarked for new Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) and to set into
motion a June 29 auction of the AWS radio frequencies for which the FCC
expects to rake
Anyone provide access in West Union, West Viriginia, near Shirley?
Address:
HC67 Box 197
West Union, W Va. 26456
I understand it's the backwoods.
The customer is high up on a hill/mountain.
Thanks.
Mario
---
[This e-mail was scanned for viruses by our AntiVirus Protection System]
--
WISPA Wire
Tom,
Again, I am confused. You state that TCP will correct for packet loss it
detects... so in that case, FTP would never see the packet loss because
TCP is already "correcting" for the loss.
My point was, if you have a link with 2% loss, it will show up doing a
TCP test by being slower than
14 matches
Mail list logo
