Marlon,
Just for info... see inline...
Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
All due respect right back at ya! grin
Anyhow, to think that manufacturers all have our best interests at heart
is a bit naive I think. What's better for them? A 4' dish sale or a
cheap and easy 2' or 1' dish?
DISH SIZE
Rich Comroe wrote:
SNIP
Yeah, but ...
Location Free, Slingbox, etc., do quite nicely on much much less BW. Is IPTV
really that much of a hog that it needs 1.25Mbps? How could it possibly
compete against products out there already that use only a tenth of this BW?
The items that use
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:09:23 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer wrote
Mark, your info is 3 years old
We have to be ready to tap our lines. Even IMs.
marlon
I think you missed my point, Marlon... That being that not even the
government is a reliable source of information about what the
fyi, we just switched over a fios customer onto our trango 900 mhz system.
they were so pissed at the up/down constant thrashing of their high speed
fios service... quite happy with us now :)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Mark,
wispa wrote:
I have been attempting for how long now, to get across to you people that
this whole CALEA flap for ISP's is NOT LAW, but opinion from the FCC, where
it's attempting to write law instead of Congress.
It's a mess, because it's NOT LAW, only Congress can write law and it
I need to know if anyone can service the York PA area. I have a client
there who needs bandwidth ASAP.
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Remember that like the term wireless, iptv has way too many meanings.
IPTV to the telcos is TV to the cablecos.
By saying IPTV, they figure they get around a lot of stuff and make it
sound better than broadcast TV.
Broadcast TV isn't much of a bandwidth problem - they do it fine today.
TV
Mark,
CALEA IS LAW. There are interpretations of that law, but they have been upheld
by courts.
CALEA is not the opinion of the DOJ or FCC. It is not far-reaching (like say the Patriot Act) or secret and possibly illegal like the NSA-ATT wiretapping / surveillance.
It is part of the 2
I don't think you would select 11GHz to go 100'. That's the whole
point...let's hope FCC doesn't screw up 11GHz by allowing it's use for
short haul applications.
Best,
Brad
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
Sent:
Speaking of IPTV...
We are demo'ing IPTV with MobiTV and NDS at CTIA
http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articlehybrid.aspx?storyID=urn:newsml:reut
ers.com:20070327:MTFH67307_2007-03-27_12-49-45_L27270281type=comktNews
rpc=44
Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c
Hello Jack,
Good to see you're back on track with, IMO, a proper response to the 11GHz
question/concerns.
Your initial comment came off as who cares and we don't have time for this.
John simply dittoed your comments, so what was the group left to believe? I
apologize if I misunderstood your
Wow... that's good news... after reading PC Magazine's ISP comparison,
they made it sound like Verizon's fiber was the end all for every
customer they contacted. ;)
Travis
Microserv
Rick Smith wrote:
fyi, we just switched over a fios customer onto our trango 900 mhz system.
they were so
Does anyone operate in Indianapolis?
Regards,
Peter Radizeski
RAD-INFO, Inc. - Telecom Agent
813.963.5884
www.rad-info.net
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives:
REAL Close to it. What do you need?
Rick Harnish
President
OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc.
260-827-2482
Founding Member of WISPA
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Peter R.
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:27 AM
To: WISPA General List
The FCC already permits two classes of licensed antennas in Part 101.115:
Standard A and Standard B. Antennas meeting performance standard A must be
used except in areas not subject to frequency congestion (however that is
defined). If Standard B antennas are used, the operator must replace them
Peter, do you have much information on Network DVR (like the term). I
would think that if you could get DR owners to agreee to Network DVR it
would just be a small jump to real VOD. But then again, I still
struggle with the concept of them bitching about people copying stuff
that they
One of the major cable systems just lost that fight. The studios and
networks filed suit and won on the issue of copyright infringmement.
Dave
David T. Hughes
Director, Corporate Communications
Roadstar Internet
604 South King Street -Suite 200
Leesburg, VA 20175
-HOME OF INET LOUDOUN-
Office -
That agrees with most of the anecdotal information that I have on it,
which is why I am very interested if Peter has information on someone
doing it or, if like the rest of the world outside the digital rights
holders, he see the immense value of being able to do so for your
customer base.
It wouldn't happen to be this one:
http://www.samsung.com/Products/ProAV/Plasmas/PPM50M5HBXXAA.asp?page=Specifications
I was thinking of buying this last year. Held off looking for lower
pricing, so I can buy 2.
George
Rich Comroe wrote:
I myself don't want to watch a movie on my pc
Even worse than the Friday night phenomenon is say Saturdays in the
fall. Layne Sisk had some pretty nasty things to say about the IPTV
solution used in Utah on football saturdays and how the usage would
honestly bring the fiber ring to it knees.
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
Dawn
Now Marlon, that's not why we ALL insult you ;)
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
sigh
having no viable options vs. having one's head buried in the sand are
two totally different things.
Boy I'm getting tired of being insulted for having a successful business!
Right, I was just reading this a couple days ago. It did not look good
for the future of network based dvr and it sounded like it had
implications for anyone wanting to cache primetime tv.
David Hughes wrote:
One of the major cable systems just lost that fight. The studios and
networks filed
- Original Message -
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 12:23 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
Marlon,
Just for info... see inline...
Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
All
I TOTALLY disagree with that.
On two fronts.
First, what's wrong with a short licensed link? If that's what I want to
use that's up to me. Maybe I want to put a link that requires 100% uptime
guarantee and has to be licensed but only has to cross the train tracks.
Ever try to push a cable
Marlon,
11GHz is intended for medium to long range links. That is why they require
a relatively larger antenna to keep the beam narrow to increase the freq
reuse ability. 6GHz requires a 6' minimum antenna and this is a GOOD thing
otherwise there would be fewer 6GHz licenses available in any
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:31:56 -0400, Dawn DiPietro wrote
Mark,
wispa wrote:
I have been attempting for how long now, to get across to you people that
this whole CALEA flap for ISP's is NOT LAW, but opinion from the FCC,
where
it's attempting to write law instead of Congress.
It's
Marlon,
I think you misunderstood Brad's comment. Nowhere does he say not to use
a short licensed link.
I think his point is that using 11 GHz for a 100-ft link is
inappropriate. A higher frequency, like 23 GHz is the proper way to go
because lower frequencies go further than higher
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:21:53 -0400, Peter R. wrote
Mark,
CALEA IS LAW. There are interpretations of that law, but they have
been upheld by courts.
YOu're arguing against things I'm not saying.
CALEA is not the opinion of the DOJ or FCC. It is not far-reaching
(like say the Patriot
Hi,
While I appreciate Mark's comments and point of view, I for one would like
to also start looking for ways to possibly comply with CALEA in a
cost-effective way. I'm afraid that if the conversation here is limited to
whether we should comply or not, we might lose the opportunity to share
I bet the technical aspects of how to comply will be emerging soon.
I understand the wispa calea meeting went very well.
So there must be some good news.
Adam Greene wrote:
Hi,
While I appreciate Mark's comments and point of view, I for one would
like to also start looking for ways to
Brad,
I see how my original comment could have been misinterpreted. There was
an element of I don't have time for this. Now that I've taken the time
(that I didn't have) and (hopefully) asked the right questions, I think
it's time for others to follow up if they feel it's an important issue.
Mark,
Wireless providers DO have to comply with CALEA whether you like it or not.
As quoted from the link I sent you earlier;
Nor does our interpretation of section 332 of the Communications Act
and its implementing regulations here alter either our decision in the
CALEA proceeding to apply
The best stratergy to take towards CALEA is to get familiar and get
ready to comply. If for some reason it turns out some don't have to
comply, then no loss. If it turns out that we all have to comply, then
we're ahead of the game.
Think positive!
Dawn DiPietro wrote:
Mark,
Wireless
Courtesy of ATT wireless. Just wave your cell phone at the cash register!
What will they think of next?
--
George Rogato
Welcome to WISPA
www.wispa.org
http://signup.wispa.org/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
George,
In Japan they have been doing this for quite awhile now.
Regards,
Dawn
George Rogato wrote:
Courtesy of ATT wireless. Just wave your cell phone at the cash register!
What will they think of next?
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
Imagine a hacker type that could just drive downtown Tokyo and charge
everyones cell phone at the same time.
I bet they could rack up so much money, they couldn't move it fast enough.
Dawn DiPietro wrote:
George,
In Japan they have been doing this for quite awhile now.
Regards,
Dawn
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:07:51 -0400, Adam Greene wrote
Hi,
While I appreciate Mark's comments and point of view, I for one
would like to also start looking for ways to possibly comply with
CALEA in a cost-effective way. I'm afraid that if the conversation
here is limited to whether we
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:17:09 -0400, Dawn DiPietro wrote
Mark,
Wireless providers DO have to comply with CALEA whether you like it
or not.
As quoted from the link I sent you earlier;
Nor does our interpretation of section 332 of the Communications
Act and its implementing regulations
I have posted a couple of messages over on the Mikrotik forum over the last
month or so. Mikrotik first basically said why should we care- we are in
Latvia. After a little pressure from users, they began to ask for more
information about the subject.
I'm not at all knowledgeable enough to
Mark,
Right or wrong, Congress regularly delegates rule-making to the various
agencies. They pass laws that are purposely vague and/or broad and they
empower the various agencies (and the courts, ultimately) to fill in the
blanks. It's questionable Constitutionally, if you believe that we
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:29:18 -0400, Jeff Broadwick wrote
Mark,
Right or wrong, Congress regularly delegates rule-making to the various
agencies. They pass laws that are purposely vague and/or broad and they
empower the various agencies (and the courts, ultimately) to fill in
the blanks.
Just as a general rule, CALEA monitoring is not something that you
need to--or want to--do at each individual CPE or router. Likewise,
although assistance from manufacturors is nice, it is not requisite
and in some ways may complicate matters since you can end up with
hundreds of different
George Rogato wrote:
Imagine a hacker type that could just drive downtown Tokyo and charge
everyones cell phone at the same time.
As Dawn mentioned, this has been big in Japan for a while, and AFAIK
nothing like this has happened yet. Usually, you do have to confirm (via
pressing buttons on
Mark,
Enough with the analogies.
CALEA is law - not once but twice - 1934 and 1996.
Courts have upheld the FCC decision on what CALEA covers.
The same laws that give the DOJ the right to wiretap, gives the FCC the
right to create guidelines.
I don't like it, any more than I like ATT letting
I've been looking over OpenCALEA - I can't really see any reason for a
NON-VOIP provider that it wouldn't do everything properly needed from a
Linux command prompt on a 700mhz old HP Presario, all for a cost of less
than $100 for a used computer. And when OpenCALEA is done, it will solve
99% of
Sam,
The content rights owners are strong - and a PITA.
There business model revolves around record once, sell thousands of
times to the same consumer.
That model of course is broken - and Gen Y disregards it.
If the RIAA and the MPAA keep pushing, a group may get together and sue.
Like
Clint Ricker wrote:
Just as a general rule, CALEA monitoring is not something that you
need to--or want to--do at each individual CPE or router.
Wouldn't it be cool, and cheap, if it was just that easy?
Here's your encrypted access to xxx customers radio / port, it's yours
to monitor...?
Hello Clint.
You are confusing me. When I mention MT, I said routers, not CPE. We don't
use non type accepted CPE and therefore don't have MT in any form at the
customer end. However our site routers and even the edge router ARE MT- even
the edge router. Those are what I am talking about.
I
Yeah, that's it!
Naw it's not. I shouldn't be embarassed to tell the truth. The 48 display is
the lowest tech thing in the livingroom. It's an almost 10yr old Toshiba
rear-projection TV, and the PC simply uses a TV out. So when Sam Tetherow says
the stuff that uses 1/10th of the bandwidth
Mark,
You make some good observations, but I think you miss the overall
point. In the end, the technical details of who can deliver what Mb/s
doesn't matter when your competitor wins customers because they can
offer services that you can't.
It is true that cable and telco backbones can't handle
There are 3rd party vendors, like IP Fabrics with CALEA compliance gear.
For data it shouldn't be that big of a deal since the Edge Router
(connecting your WAN with your upstream) should be able to be tapped, if
you use what I will call a brand name (Cisco, Juniper, Redback, blah,
blah and
...one of the big differences between standard Wi-Fi and Intel's
long-range version lies in the fact that the long-range signals are
directional: they are tuned to travel from one antenna to another one
and nowhere else. A standard Wi-Fi antenna broadcasts its signal in a
360-degree
Clint Ricker wrote:
It is true that cable and telco backbones can't handle a simultaneous
sustained 1Mb/s to all of their subscribers; last mile is the most
talked about limitation; however, transport to the node is a major
limitation although less so as many service providers are upgrading to
One reason would be so that your voice and opinion are heard.
Maybe you and Mark can take Board seats and WISPA would take a turn
towards your view of how things should be.
Rarely does an ISP association represent the views of the louder minority.
Since it is volunteer and made up of
I haven't joined yet either. Three reasons:
(1) I would have to join as a vendor, since I am a consultant - and I
can't as yet see the ROI.
(2) I see the similarities here to another group that I belonged to ...
and I don't want to go down that path again.
(3) I have a real problem with
Hi,
Anyone happen to know the MSRP of the new Redline AN-80 5.4ghz p2p system?
Travis
Microserv
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Thanks all for the interesting posts ...
Regarding tapping at the edge between my upstream provider and me, I'm of
the understanding that I need to be able to capture all of my customer's
data, even that which passes between one customer and another, or between my
customer and my mail server,
Peter R. wrote:
So, Blair, none of what WISPA has done, you agree with?
Did not say that.
Then why are you still on the list?
I monitor this public list, and others, to get an idea where things are
going in the industry.
Also, to lobby and fight takes effort, energy, time and money.
And
Blair,
Two months ago, we were ready to join WISPA. At the time, I felt that
WISPA had proven its longevity and was becoming a mature voice for the
WISP's. But, after the form 477 issue, FCC sticker issue, and now
the CALEA issue, I'm pretty sure that I disagree with the majority of
the
Blair Davis wrote:
Because at WISPA, we don't have to all think the same and have the same
opinions all in step. We're not clones. We're individuals who each have
our own beliefs and run our operation individually, sometimes uniquely
And fortunately WISPA is an organization made up of
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:20:15 -0400, Blair Davis wrote
I've been watching this discussion for a bit.
Up front, I have to say I agree with Mark.
Say the FBI and DOJ wanted a way to track any automobile in the
country in real time, (so the bad guys can't hide their movements).
They go to
George
As to form 477 and CALEA, no, no one has spoken of making membership
contingent on their position on these issues.
But, I do recall a discussion, on this list, 'Dealing with bad players',
starting on Feb 8, that basically proposed requiring the use of
stickered equipment to be a
Depends on the config -- per end @ LIST (2 sides = 1 link), you're
looking at
9 Mb: 1940
18 Mb: 2245
27 Mb: 2840
36 Mb: 3340
54 Mb: 4540
108 Mb: 5440
-Charles
---
WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
Coming to a City Near You
http://www.winog.com
-Original
Sounds vagely familiar,
Like I said, from my opinion, wispa would not be an industry association
Remember once had a guy selling jock straps with the wispa logo thinking
that was a good idea too.
Blair Davis wrote:
George
As to form 477 and CALEA, no, no one has spoken of making
yeah, I was reading this article, and I believe it to be FUD.
They were bragging about the ability to backhaul wirelessly between
towers...whoopee...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 7:03 PM
To:
Inline
wispa wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:20:15 -0400, Blair Davis wrote
I've been watching this discussion for a bit.
Up front, I have to say I agree with Mark.
Say the FBI and DOJ wanted a way to track any automobile in the
country in real time, (so the bad guys can't hide
Ugh...KarlNet?
---
WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
Coming to a City Near You
http://www.winog.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:03 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
I think you missed the technology. They weren't talking about just
repeaters, they were talking about making a radio talk to just one other
radio at a time through a beam pointed only at that customer radio and
no body else's.
I think they were talking Vivato or Navini with their beam forming
Yep! KarlNet/TurboCell all over again
With phased array antennas? Or with servos on the antennas?
Charles Wu wrote:
Ugh...KarlNet?
---
WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
Coming to a City Near You
http://www.winog.com
-Original Message-
From:
Mark,
Right in time.
WISPA will be having elections in the very near future.
Now is the time to join WISPA and be eligible to cast your vote or run
for a board seat.
Membership is a very low 250.00 per year.
And you get to vote!
Try the new automated sign up:
And exactly HOW do you suppose that a very low power link will somehow screw
up the band?
Using higher power kills off everything on BOTH ends of the link. The
signal doesn't just stop, it continues on past the rec. antenna.
Your argument make no sense to me. Not from a frequency reuse
We're close guys. Just waiting to get a doc fine tuned and double checked.
marlon
- Original Message -
From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
I bet the
Ralph,
My apologies for the confusion.
I think we are more or less on the same page method-wise for gathering
that information; I made some assumptions that may have been
applicable to your network.
Now, as far as the pretty red package and bow for transferring the
information to a law
From the lawyers
marlon
Congress creates legislation, approves it, and then sends it to the
President for signature. After that occurs, you have a federal law. In
those laws, Congress may delegate authority to carry out the goals of the
legislation.
CALEA is a federal law and
I have seen CPEs on a few commercial buildings in the York area near I-83,
so there is likely a WISP in the area. I don't know what company owns
them though.
Patrick
On Tue, March 27, 2007 7:45 am, Tim Wolfe said:
I need to know if anyone can service the York PA area. I have a client
there
Adam,
Regarding tapping at the edge between my upstream provider and me, I'm of
the understanding that I need to be able to capture all of my customer's
data, even that which passes between one customer and another, or between my
customer and my mail server, or my customer and one of my other
Hey Bob M.
Seeing your on list and talking about short PtP sots.
What do you think about FSO, Plaintree?
Have you installed much and do you like? I'm thinking that I might have
to go that way and figured you could advise.
George Rogato
Welcome to WISPA
www.wispa.org
77 matches
Mail list logo
