Your right but I would be willing to bet almost every wisp on here
wouldn't turn down the opportunity to leverage the Earthlink brand and
could likely offload some servers such as email and web hosting, offer
the package virus scanner / firewall junk software etc. There are many
ways a
They do have mounts for the top and bottom, but no middle. My MTI's mount
at the top and bottom as well.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
This sector is available with what they call a scissor bracket. You can see
the scissor bracket in their spec sheet
http://www.pacwireless.com/products/pawsa24.pdf
Gives you attachment point at the top and bottom with a hinged bracket on
the top for easy downtilt and it comes with degree markings
Some of these issues become resolved using an 18V power supply from our own
experience. It seems that some units have issues on 12V not sure if it's due
to long cable runs, badly crimped cable or just unit issue or possible
problem with the provided power supply. But we seen units like this and
I looked in the mailing list but there seem at least not to been any
discussion about this. If there been my apologies.
As some of you might know there is a petition turned over to the FCC that
relates to net neutrality. Vuze, Inc is a video content provider whom
utilizes bittorrent protocol to
I would think that any application should be allowed to run, with the
expectation of reasonable throughput. IE: real time communications or
streams should be permitted unregulated within that user's plan, but that
general file sharing be allowed to be restricted, yet still having a
The dominant service plan outside the US is, indeed, a byte-cap contract.
Such a contract, or tiers of contracts, permit the product to be delivered
with appropriate cost with those who want more paying more by quantity not
speed.
The concept is alien to the US and would be subject to derision
In my opinion, a monthly bandwidth cap and throttling during peak hours
should do fine for the download on these apps. As for the upload, TOS can
prohibit your customer connections from being a server, thereby prohibiting
the upload, at least in policy.
This comes up all the time, and we
I will go further with this. This comes up so very often. The subject line
is different, but the conversation is the same. We're spinning our wheels,
folks.
As a provider, we can very affordably have the ability to throttle, and
filter. Do this for your every-day customers.
Also sell
Here is some food for thought,
We may want to approach this issue with a free market approach. We may
want to emphasize that the free market can and will self regulate this
behavior. If Comcast is discouraging their customers from operating
this type of software, that creates an opportunity
I think this could be the straw that breaks the camels back. It may just be
what is needed to push internet service to a usage based model by the big guys,
instead of a commodity as it is now. I would almost bet my house, that the
telcos would already be doing this if it were not for the
More reasons I agree with my first post and what a few others are saying. The
big providers can't deal with it either! Just more of the reason for Internet
Access to go to a usage based model. It will make ALL of our bottom lines
better...we should not be funding the transports for these high
Scottie... When you say 'I wish I could'...
That's exactly my point.. YOU CAN. You will probably have an extremely
small percentage of customers who will trip the limit for extra charges.
You will probably have a small percentage of your customers that will
actually demand that you allow
It appears that shell.mvn.net is trying to send a message, and it has
shown up blank about 20 times so far.
Does anyone else see this?
Mike
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
Which is then the more important to file on this petition because what Vuze,
Inc want is to prohibit any type of bandwidth management on the bittorrent
connection. SO if they win then you might not be allowed to do this.
/ Eje
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
Very true. But when it comes to illegal content this might and not necessary
is the case. In the case with Vuze they use bittorrent to deliver legal
video content. Same thing with for example WoW they use if memory serves me
right bittorrent to deliver the sometimes very big software updates they
Your missing the point. MAYBE if what Vuze is petitioning to FCC becomes
law you will no longer be allowed to manage your bandwidth in the
fashion I know many WISP's are doing by throttling down or lower the
priority peer to peer applications have on their network. Vuze want to
prohibit you to do
Eje, respectfully, you should not say that I'm missing the point.
Our success in bandwidth management does not lie in one court case or one
solution. There were several issues brought up in this message, and the
Vuse case is one of them. Vuze is one of many problems that are coming, and
it
Alright I see what you are saying now. To comment on this petition is now
our chance of making our voice heard.
My fear (I'm very certain of it) is that if ISPs wouldn't be allowed to
bandwidth manage this content then the cost for the end users WILL go up.
My first reaction to this entire
My strong feeling is that the free market approach is by far the best
approach to the Network Neutrality/Network Management. If Comcast wants
to degrade the service to their customers, then that is an opportunity
for the other providers in the market - they are essentially degrading
their own
Hi,
I will be the first to admit that I know very little about VLANs. I
understand the concept and even how to configure them (somewhat).
Currently our entire network is fully routed and switched without any
VLANs. However, we are starting to see a problem on larger tower
locations where we
I look at Vuze and other content providers 180* differently from you.
They are not 'stealing my bandwidth' they are providing my customers
with a desire to have a faster internet connection.
I agree that P2P can kill a network and any network provider needs to be
able to do what is needed to
That should, now in order to do that you will need to have a separate
subnet for each AP and the customers off of it (I believe). Have you
done any packet sniffing to see if there is a lot of ARP requests?
How many hosts do you have off of that tower?
Ryan
On Nov 18, 2007, at 10:02 PM,
WISPA already has a committee dedicated to designing a wholesale program
that would make this doable. We just need a big customer to work with.
We can already document that WISPs pass well over 2 million homes. Lot of
customer potential there.
marlon
- Original Message -
From:
For us this is all good news.
It'll actually force a pay as you go model. One that should never have been
abandoned in the first place.
Can you just imagine, buying your first 3 radios for the network then
expecting the next 30 for free???
Our upstream bandwidth (pay as you go) has
FYI Scott,
It's taken a few years, but the unlimited providers in my market are
starting to add bit caps too. And charging for overages.
marlon
- Original Message -
From: Scottie Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007
26 matches
Mail list logo
