From billreid at shaw.ca Fri May 1 16:56:17 2009 From: billreid at shaw.ca (Bill Reid) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 16:56:17 -0500 Subject: [*] Softphone is an energy hog Message-ID: <49FB7001.4070707@shaw.ca> Interesting article comparing energy costs of hard and soft IP phones. For a Manitoba comparison our hydro costs us 6.25 cents per kilowatt hour. http://www.nojitter.com/blog/archives/2009/04/that_softphone.html?cid=nl_nojitter_txt -- Bill From amoolji at devfoundry.com Mon May 4 13:30:06 2009 From: amoolji at devfoundry.com (Aman Moolji) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 14:30:06 -0400 Subject: [*] VoIP Aware Recession Buster Sale - Save 15% on licenses, this week only! Message-ID: <002b01c9cce6$5b9e86b0$12db9410$@com> Times are tough all around, and Devfoundry is doing its part by lowering its prices for a limited time. Between now and May 8th, save 15% on all licenses and begin proactively managing your VoIP phone system today! Your phone system is vital to your business and you can't afford to be caught off guard when it goes down. VoIP Aware is a vanguard against VoIP problems and fast tracks users to a solution once they are encountered. VoIP Aware also offers tremendous value by providing features that span an entire suite of applications (such as call logging, call monitoring and call recording). Best of all, VoIP Aware is designed for usability and is targeted towards everyday IT professionals in addition to veteran VoIP engineers. This offer expires on May 8th so act now to take advantage of the additional savings! Visit www.voipaware.com/landing/ML115.php for more information, or contact Sales directly at +1.866.247.5527! Businesses use VoIP Aware to: * Cut costs by minimizing the time, resources and sometimes travel required to solve VoIP problems when they occur. * Improve customer/user satisfaction by increasing service uptime and maintaining the overall health of a VoIP phone system. * Receive faster support from integrators, service providers and OEMs by providing complete diagnostic data. * Add value by using proactive monitoring and diagnostic solutions to offer an additional level of service. * Increase efficiency with additional tools normally found in other applications (such as call logging and call recording). Features: * Monitor all SIP calls and analyze for details and QoS * Generate MOS for all voice calls * Analyze sender and receiver fax signals * Generate alerts for audio and fax * Capture and store diagnostic data (.pcap) for all calls to a central location * Generate CDRs for all calls in real-time * Navigate CDRs chronologically or search by originating/dialed number * Extract audio (.wav) and fax pages (.tif) from completed voice and fax calls * Generate high level call statistics * Remotely accessible web interface Visit www.voipaware.com/landing/ML115.php for more information, or contact Sales directly at +1.866.247.5527! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.muug.mb.ca/pipermail/asterisk/attachments/20090504/ee10a1c3/attachment.html From billreid at shaw.ca Wed May 6 11:26:55 2009 From: billreid at shaw.ca (Bill Reid) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 11:26:55 -0500 Subject: [*] isen.blog: Broadband without Internet ain't worth squat Message-ID: <4A01BA4F.2050207@shaw.ca> Isenberg's keynote address delivered at the Broadband Properties Summit. A 30,000-foot view of why our work is important. http://isen.com/blog/2009/04/broadband-without-internet-ain-worth.html Isenberg reflects on a world without the Internet. It is interesting to reflect our where we would be if the FonKompanies were still controlling how we communicate. Enjoy, Bill From tompoe at fngi.net Wed May 6 11:59:22 2009 From: tompoe at fngi.net (Tom Poe) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 11:59:22 -0500 Subject: [*] isen.blog: Broadband without Internet ain't worth squat In-Reply-To: <4A01BA4F.2050207@shaw.ca> References: <4A01BA4F.2050207@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <4A01C1EA.6010601@fngi.net> Bill Reid wrote: > Isenberg's keynote address delivered at the Broadband Properties Summit. > A 30,000-foot view of why our work is important. > > http://isen.com/blog/2009/04/broadband-without-internet-ain-worth.html > > Isenberg reflects on a world without the Internet. It is interesting to > reflect our where we would be if the FonKompanies were still controlling > how we communicate. > > Enjoy, > Bill > > _______________________________________________ > Asterisk mailing list > Asterisk at muug.mb.ca > http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/asterisk > > Broadband without Internet is a phrase often used to describe decentralized telecommunications. Isenberg seems determined to frame the issue in terms favorable to the incumbents. Or, maybe I'm too locked into conspiracy tendencies. Tom From billreid at shaw.ca Wed May 6 12:14:03 2009 From: billreid at shaw.ca (Bill Reid) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 12:14:03 -0500 Subject: [*] isen.blog: Broadband without Internet ain't worth squat In-Reply-To: <4A01C1EA.6010601@fngi.net> References: <4A01BA4F.2050207@shaw.ca> <4A01C1EA.6010601@fngi.net> Message-ID: <4A01C55B.8070109@shaw.ca> Tom Poe wrote: > Broadband without Internet is a phrase often used to describe > decentralized telecommunications. Isenberg seems determined to frame > the issue in terms favorable to the incumbents. Or, maybe I'm too > locked into conspiracy tendencies. > Tom > I do not quite understand why you think he is framing it "in terms favorable to the incumbents". Isenberg is not a fan of phone or cable companies. -- Bill From tompoe at fngi.net Wed May 6 13:01:58 2009 From: tompoe at fngi.net (Tom Poe) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 13:01:58 -0500 Subject: [*] isen.blog: Broadband without Internet ain't worth squat In-Reply-To: <4A01C55B.8070109@shaw.ca> References: <4A01BA4F.2050207@shaw.ca> <4A01C1EA.6010601@fngi.net> <4A01C55B.8070109@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <4A01D096.6010604@fngi.net> Bill Reid wrote: > Tom Poe wrote: > >> Broadband without Internet is a phrase often used to describe >> decentralized telecommunications. Isenberg seems determined to frame >> the issue in terms favorable to the incumbents. Or, maybe I'm too >> locked into conspiracy tendencies. >> Tom >> > I do not quite understand why you think he is framing it "in terms > favorable to the incumbents". Isenberg is not a fan of phone or cable > companies. > > -- Bill > Here's the key passage that leaves me wondering what Isenberg is up to: I repeat, Most of the time when we say Broadband we mean High Speed Connections to the Internet. Broadband is synecdoche. Without the Internet, "Broadband" is just another incremental improvement. It makes telephony and TV better. It makes the Internet better too. But the key driver of all the killer apps we know and love is the Internet, not Broadband. And, of course, the Internet is enabled by lots of technologies - computers, storage, software, audio compression, video display technology, AND high-speed wired and wireless networking. Now, Broadband is a very important enabler. The United States has slower, more expensive connections to the Internet than much of the developed world. And that's embarrassing to me as a US citizen. Imagine if a quirk of US policy caused us to have dimmer displays. That would be a quick fix, unless the display terminal industry demanded that we disable the Internet in other ways before it gave us brighter displays. Or insisted "all your screens are belong to us." High-speed transmission does not, by itself, turn the wheel of creative destruction so central to the capitalist process. The Internet does that. Broadband, by itself, does not fuel the rise of new companies and the destruction of old ones. The Internet does that. Broadband by itself is not disruptive; the Internet is. Congress listened to promises of video phones in 1992 from incumbents, available to everyone by the end of the decade. It never happened. Centralized control seems to be the singular cause. Today, we have a choice between centralized control and decentralized control, founded in the issue of local broadband infrastructure. Isenberg wants to frame the issue as something other than where the issue lies. We have demonstrations at almost every level that decentralized local broadband infrastructure turns the whole telecommunications industry on its head. Whether a "last mile" solution of fiber-to-the-home, or wifi, or wimax, or combinations. For something less than $50 (one-time-fee) per house, a community establishes a local broadband infrastructure without Internet access. Once in place, that local broadband infrastructure provides many generations of residents with free local telecommunications, and no technical expertise is needed to operate and maintain the infrastructure. To gain access to this local broadband infrastructure, the incumbents would have to offer reasonable wholesale Internet pricing. It wouldn't take long to build out such a decentralized approach, and Isenberg knows this. So, why is he perpetuating a centralized approach to telecommunications? Tom From billreid at shaw.ca Wed May 6 14:19:08 2009 From: billreid at shaw.ca (Bill Reid) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 14:19:08 -0500 Subject: [*] isen.blog: Broadband without Internet ain't worth squat In-Reply-To: <4A01D096.6010604@fngi.net> References: <4A01BA4F.2050207@shaw.ca> <4A01C1EA.6010601@fngi.net> <4A01C55B.8070109@shaw.ca> <4A01D096.6010604@fngi.net> Message-ID: <4A01E2AC.8040104@shaw.ca> Tom Poe wrote: > Bill Reid wrote: >> Tom Poe wrote: >> >>> Broadband without Internet is a phrase often used to describe >>> decentralized telecommunications. Isenberg seems determined to frame >>> the issue in terms favorable to the incumbents. Or, maybe I'm too >>> locked into conspiracy tendencies. >>> Tom >>> >> I do not quite understand why you think he is framing it "in terms >> favorable to the incumbents". Isenberg is not a fan of phone or cable >> companies. >> >> -- Bill >> > > Here's the key passage that leaves me wondering what Isenberg is up to: > > I repeat, Most of the time when we say Broadband we mean High > Speed Connections to the Internet. Broadband is synecdoche. > ... > The Internet does that. Broadband by itself is not > disruptive; the Internet is. > > > Congress listened to promises of video phones in 1992 from incumbents, > available to everyone by the end of the decade. It never happened. > Centralized control seems to be the singular cause. Today, we have a > choice between centralized control and decentralized control, founded in I assume you have not read Isenberg's essay: http://www.rageboy.com/stupidnet.html It very clearly discusses the failure of central control and the huge advantage of decentralized control(i.e. the Internet) > Whether a "last mile" solution of fiber-to-the-home, or wifi, or wimax, > or combinations. For something less than $50 (one-time-fee) per house, I have trouble believing that number. $50 does not buy much these days. The number that is usually quoted is much higher than that(certainly for FTTH). > a community establishes a local broadband infrastructure without > Internet access. Once in place, that local broadband infrastructure > provides many generations of residents with free local > telecommunications, and no technical expertise is needed to operate and The whole point of the text that you quoted was that a local broadband infrastructure is not of much interest without Internet. Isenberg talks extensively on local broadband and even has organized conferences on this topic. Freedom to Connect http://freedom-to-connect.net/ -- Bill From tompoe at fngi.net Wed May 6 15:11:07 2009 From: tompoe at fngi.net (Tom Poe) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 15:11:07 -0500 Subject: [*] isen.blog: Broadband without Internet ain't worth squat In-Reply-To: <4A01E2AC.8040104@shaw.ca> References: <4A01BA4F.2050207@shaw.ca> <4A01C1EA.6010601@fngi.net> <4A01C55B.8070109@shaw.ca> <4A01D096.6010604@fngi.net> <4A01E2AC.8040104@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <4A01EEDB.9090408@fngi.net> Bill Reid wrote: > Tom Poe wrote: >> Bill Reid wrote: >>> Tom Poe wrote: >>> >>>> Broadband without Internet is a phrase often used to describe >>>> decentralized telecommunications. Isenberg seems determined to >>>> frame the issue in terms favorable to the incumbents. Or, maybe >>>> I'm too locked into conspiracy tendencies. >>>> Tom >>>> >>> I do not quite understand why you think he is framing it "in terms >>> favorable to the incumbents". Isenberg is not a fan of phone or >>> cable companies. >>> >>> -- Bill >>> >> >> Here's the key passage that leaves me wondering what Isenberg is up to: >> >> I repeat, Most of the time when we say Broadband we mean High >> Speed Connections to the Internet. Broadband is synecdoche. >> > ... >> The Internet does that. Broadband by itself is not >> disruptive; the Internet is. >> >> >> Congress listened to promises of video phones in 1992 from >> incumbents, available to everyone by the end of the decade. It never >> happened. Centralized control seems to be the singular cause. >> Today, we have a choice between centralized control and decentralized >> control, founded in > > I assume you have not read Isenberg's essay: > http://www.rageboy.com/stupidnet.html > > It very clearly discusses the failure of central control and the huge > advantage of decentralized control(i.e. the Internet) > > >> Whether a "last mile" solution of fiber-to-the-home, or wifi, or >> wimax, or combinations. For something less than $50 (one-time-fee) >> per house, > > I have trouble believing that number. $50 does not buy much these > days. The number that is usually quoted is much higher than > that(certainly for FTTH). > >> a community establishes a local broadband infrastructure without >> Internet access. Once in place, that local broadband infrastructure >> provides many generations of residents with free local >> telecommunications, and no technical expertise is needed to operate and > > The whole point of the text that you quoted was that a local broadband > infrastructure is not of much interest without Internet. > > Isenberg talks extensively on local broadband and even has organized > conferences on this topic. > > Freedom to Connect http://freedom-to-connect.net/ > > -- Bill > > > Bill: You restated the incumbent framing quite eloquently, when you say, ". . . that a local broadband infrastructure is not of much interest without Internet." Yes, I read Isenberg, and left a comment, yesterday, to remind him that the issue is centralized vs. decentralized telecommunications, not the Internet. Now, my position is that for $50 a house, or one open-mesh.com unit per house, a community can establish a local broadband infrastructure that provides free broadband (1Mbps - 54Mbps) unto perpetuity. No Internet. Local telemedicine programs, community alert services, city services (diminish or eliminate many budget considerations), and, of course, local telecommunications ranging from videophone to virtual world participation. Above all, every child has broadband access to their school network from home and a true 21st century education. With such an infrastructure, it becomes obvious that hospitals will want access to this local broadband infrastructure to offer telemedicine programs, in return for Internet access to participants, maybe? ISPs, incumbent telco/cablecos, will want access, and competition results in reasonable wholesale Internet access for the community. How about IPv6 era business opportunities? Your refrigerator and your local grocery teaming up to make your life convenient? Don't forget the local newspaper that just might offer subscription and Internet access packages as incentive to let them gain access. The point is, a local broadband infrastructure, combined with "white spaces" networking at the lowest cost per house is a whole lot better for you and I than the centralized crappoolla offered by the incumbents. And, Isenberg is moving us away from the target with his coded "framing" of the issues. I hope he catches up with countries like Australia that just announced recently their intention to invest hundreds of billions into broadband infrastructure. Tom From billreid at shaw.ca Wed May 6 15:48:48 2009 From: billreid at shaw.ca (Bill Reid) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 15:48:48 -0500 Subject: [*] isen.blog: Broadband without Internet ain't worth squat In-Reply-To: <4A01EEDB.9090408@fngi.net> References: <4A01BA4F.2050207@shaw.ca> <4A01C1EA.6010601@fngi.net> <4A01C55B.8070109@shaw.ca> <4A01D096.6010604@fngi.net> <4A01E2AC.8040104@shaw.ca> <4A01EEDB.9090408@fngi.net> Message-ID: <4A01F7B0.7000004@shaw.ca> Tom Poe wrote: > The point is, a local broadband infrastructure, combined with "white > spaces" networking at the lowest cost per house is a whole lot better > for you and I than the centralized crappoolla offered by the > incumbents. And, Isenberg is moving us away from the target with his > coded "framing" of the issues. I assume when you say "centralized crappoolla" you are referring to the Internet. The Internet is not centralized like the PSTN. It supports end-to-end computing which is the essence of a decentralized network. Without Internet connectivity a local broadband infrastructure is close to irrelevant. I certainly agree with you that the Internet access provided by some ISPs lives much to be desired but true central control is found in the PSTN and the cell phone providers. Isenberg supports local broadband initiatives and decentralized control so it is interesting that you seem to feel that he does not. I still do not understand how his "framing" of the issue goes against these topics. If you are saying that local broadband is more important than Internet connectivity then we will have to agree to disagree. -- Bill From bcole at plumcom.ca Wed May 6 16:34:17 2009 From: bcole at plumcom.ca (Bruce Cole) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 17:34:17 -0400 Subject: [*] Asterisk Digium Open Telephony Conference Planing for April 7, 2010 question In-Reply-To: <4BAFE263AB06491AA4EE06852AAB57B4@plumcom.local> References: <4BAFE263AB06491AA4EE06852AAB57B4@plumcom.local> Message-ID: Hi there I've just started to work on our event for 2010 and wanted to 'reach out' to your community and ask what you would like to see and who you would like to meet that would make for a compelling reason to visit with us at the third annual TAUG sponsored Asterisk Digium Open Telephony Conference. Here is a link to the current year just completed: http://www.it360.ca/index.php/asterisk-open-telephony-conference.html Although the presentations may not hold the same meaning as being there, I've also included the link to all the presentations currently available. http://www.it360.ca/index.php/presentations-for-download.html Some of the obvious questions would include: Who would you like to learn from? What vendors would you like to connect with? Appropriate charge to attend - this year the conference was $247.50 Hotel rate was $125 per night for single or double. Other comments or thoughts .... Your time is appreciated and I'd like to include your ideas in our planning. Kind regards Bruce Cole Producer From john at johnlange.ca Wed May 6 16:57:07 2009 From: john at johnlange.ca (John Lange) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 16:57:07 -0500 Subject: [*] isen.blog: Broadband without Internet ain't worth squat In-Reply-To: <4A01EEDB.9090408@fngi.net> References: <4A01BA4F.2050207@shaw.ca> <4A01C1EA.6010601@fngi.net> <4A01C55B.8070109@shaw.ca> <4A01D096.6010604@fngi.net> <4A01E2AC.8040104@shaw.ca> <4A01EEDB.9090408@fngi.net> Message-ID: <1241647027.7942.61.camel@linux-2sym> On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 15:11 -0500, Tom Poe wrote: > Yes, I read Isenberg, and left a comment, yesterday, to remind him that > the issue is centralized vs. decentralized telecommunications, not the > Internet. I think you are under the impression that the existing system, where the incumbent telco and cable-co provide internet access is a centralized model? That is incorrect. The phone system and the cable tv systems are centralized models. The internet (regardless how you connect to it) is a decentralized model. The fundamental difference being, in the centralized model, the provider decides how and what travels over the network. And that is exactly why there is such an uproar about throttling and traffic shaping. It can be construed as an attempt by providers to turn the internet into a centralized model. > The point is, a local broadband infrastructure, combined with "white > spaces" networking at the lowest cost per house is a whole lot better > for you and I than the centralized crappoolla offered by the > incumbents. I think the real point is, if this was a viable model it would already be widespread. What you're really complaining about is lack of competition for internet access. In Canada, that is a direct result of our foreign ownership restrictions. > I hope he catches up with countries like Australia that just announced > recently their intention to invest hundreds of billions into broadband > infrastructure. Note that "hundreds of billions" works out to a lot more than $50/household. Don't you think that if the "white spaces" "mesh" network at $50/household would work they would have opted for that instead? Australia decided that rather than lift foreign ownership restrictions, they would pay for the infrastructure using their tax dollars. Long term this is destined to run into problems as governments are always juggling priorities. -- John Lange http://www.johnlange.ca From tompoe at fngi.net Wed May 6 17:18:15 2009 From: tompoe at fngi.net (Tom Poe) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 17:18:15 -0500 Subject: [*] isen.blog: Broadband without Internet ain't worth squat In-Reply-To: <1241647027.7942.61.camel@linux-2sym> References: <4A01BA4F.2050207@shaw.ca> <4A01C1EA.6010601@fngi.net> <4A01C55B.8070109@shaw.ca> <4A01D096.6010604@fngi.net> <4A01E2AC.8040104@shaw.ca> <4A01EEDB.9090408@fngi.net> <1241647027.7942.61.camel@linux-2sym> Message-ID: <4A020CA7.4090809@fngi.net> John Lange wrote: > On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 15:11 -0500, Tom Poe wrote: > >> Yes, I read Isenberg, and left a comment, yesterday, to remind him that >> the issue is centralized vs. decentralized telecommunications, not the >> Internet. >> > > I think you are under the impression that the existing system, where the > incumbent telco and cable-co provide internet access is a centralized > model? > > That is incorrect. The phone system and the cable tv systems are > centralized models. The internet (regardless how you connect to it) is a > decentralized model. The fundamental difference being, in the > centralized model, the provider decides how and what travels over the > network. > > And that is exactly why there is such an uproar about throttling and > traffic shaping. It can be construed as an attempt by providers to turn > the internet into a centralized model. > > >> The point is, a local broadband infrastructure, combined with "white >> spaces" networking at the lowest cost per house is a whole lot better >> for you and I than the centralized crappoolla offered by the >> incumbents. >> > > I think the real point is, if this was a viable model it would already > be widespread. > > What you're really complaining about is lack of competition for internet > access. In Canada, that is a direct result of our foreign ownership > restrictions. > > >> I hope he catches up with countries like Australia that just announced >> recently their intention to invest hundreds of billions into broadband >> infrastructure. >> > > Note that "hundreds of billions" works out to a lot more than > $50/household. Don't you think that if the "white spaces" "mesh" network > at $50/household would work they would have opted for that instead? > > Australia decided that rather than lift foreign ownership restrictions, > they would pay for the infrastructure using their tax dollars. Long term > this is destined to run into problems as governments are always juggling > priorities. > > John: Interesting points. On the matter of the $50 per house model, I mentioned it as an example of how low-cost a decentralized approach is, today. There is good reason this model isn't widely adopted. My personal experience was just a few months ago, when I approached mayor Jim Erbs, mayor of Charles City, Iowa, where I live. I proposed a community initiative that would use a local broadband infrastructure based on open-mesh.com technology. The proposal identified a need to have every child be able to connect to the local school network from their homes to gain a true 21st century education. I received a letter from our mayor, indicating the city would not support such an initiative. I pushed back, and was told that the executives at Qwest, our regional telephone provider, would not permit it to happen. I sent the proposal to our state governor, Chester Culver, suggesting it might be a template that could roll across the state and provide every student in Iowa to connect to the state's fiber network from their homes to receive a true 21st century education. He sent a letter cautioning me not to do anything illegal. In December, the U.S. FCC, opened the "white spaces" in our television frequencies to allow open-mesh.com technology to be applied, which would, for the same price, offer far greater range and efficiency for such a model. The model is cheap, and it's decentralized. Unfortunately, the gatekeepers are the telco/cableco monopolies, and it's time we realize the issues are best resolved in favor of the people, not the corporate thugs. What's really frustrating, is the huge amounts of taxpayer dollars being funneled to these corporate gatekeepers, when, if that same money was reallocated, as in Australia, our broadband infrastructure would look a lot different. Tom From john at johnlange.ca Wed May 6 18:24:55 2009 From: john at johnlange.ca (John Lange) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 18:24:55 -0500 Subject: [*] isen.blog: Broadband without Internet ain't worth squat In-Reply-To: <4A020CA7.4090809@fngi.net> References: <4A01BA4F.2050207@shaw.ca> <4A01C1EA.6010601@fngi.net> <4A01C55B.8070109@shaw.ca> <4A01D096.6010604@fngi.net> <4A01E2AC.8040104@shaw.ca> <4A01EEDB.9090408@fngi.net> <1241647027.7942.61.camel@linux-2sym> <4A020CA7.4090809@fngi.net> Message-ID: <1241652295.7942.102.camel@linux-2sym> On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 17:18 -0500, Tom Poe wrote: > John: Interesting points. On the matter of the $50 per house model, I > mentioned it as an example of how low-cost a decentralized approach is, > today. There is good reason this model isn't widely adopted. My > personal experience was just a few months ago, when I approached mayor > Jim Erbs, mayor of Charles City, Iowa, where I live. I proposed a > community initiative that would use a local broadband infrastructure > based on open-mesh.com technology. The proposal identified a need to > have every child be able to connect to the local school network from > their homes to gain a true 21st century education. I received a letter > from our mayor, indicating the city would not support such an > initiative. Uh? If your proposal is for a truly decentralized mesh network, then why are you asking for someone to centrally approve, fund or manage it? A truly decentralized mesh network wouldn't need anything from anyone. All it requires is a community of users to setup the devices and "mesh" together. > I pushed back, and was told that the executives at Qwest, > our regional telephone provider, would not permit it to happen. Again, if it was a truly decentralized mesh network then there wouldn't be anything they could do to stop it nor could there possibly be anything illegal about it. My understanding is that providers in the US have objected to municipalities spending money to setup public internet access that competes with their services. If each user is spending their own money and you're not asking for tax dollars, there is nothing they can object to. Regards, -- John Lange http://www.johnlange.ca From tompoe at fngi.net Wed May 6 18:44:09 2009 From: tompoe at fngi.net (Tom Poe) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 18:44:09 -0500 Subject: [*] isen.blog: Broadband without Internet ain't worth squat In-Reply-To: <1241652295.7942.102.camel@linux-2sym> References: <4A01BA4F.2050207@shaw.ca> <4A01C1EA.6010601@fngi.net> <4A01C55B.8070109@shaw.ca> <4A01D096.6010604@fngi.net> <4A01E2AC.8040104@shaw.ca> <4A01EEDB.9090408@fngi.net> <1241647027.7942.61.camel@linux-2sym> <4A020CA7.4090809@fngi.net> <1241652295.7942.102.camel@linux-2sym> Message-ID: <4A0220C9.8060803@fngi.net> John Lange wrote: > On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 17:18 -0500, Tom Poe wrote: > >> John: Interesting points. On the matter of the $50 per house model, I >> mentioned it as an example of how low-cost a decentralized approach is, >> today. There is good reason this model isn't widely adopted. My >> personal experience was just a few months ago, when I approached mayor >> Jim Erbs, mayor of Charles City, Iowa, where I live. I proposed a >> community initiative that would use a local broadband infrastructure >> based on open-mesh.com technology. The proposal identified a need to >> have every child be able to connect to the local school network from >> their homes to gain a true 21st century education. I received a letter >> from our mayor, indicating the city would not support such an >> initiative. >> > > Uh? If your proposal is for a truly decentralized mesh network, then why > are you asking for someone to centrally approve, fund or manage it? > > A truly decentralized mesh network wouldn't need anything from anyone. > All it requires is a community of users to setup the devices and "mesh" > together. > > >> I pushed back, and was told that the executives at Qwest, >> our regional telephone provider, would not permit it to happen. >> > > Again, if it was a truly decentralized mesh network then there wouldn't > be anything they could do to stop it nor could there possibly be > anything illegal about it. > > My understanding is that providers in the US have objected to > municipalities spending money to setup public internet access that > competes with their services. > > If each user is spending their own money and you're not asking for tax > dollars, there is nothing they can object to. > > Regards, > John: Well said. Tom From billreid at shaw.ca Wed May 6 19:33:03 2009 From: billreid at shaw.ca (Bill Reid) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 19:33:03 -0500 Subject: [*] isen.blog: Broadband without Internet ain't worth squat In-Reply-To: <4A0220C9.8060803@fngi.net> References: <4A01BA4F.2050207@shaw.ca> <4A01C1EA.6010601@fngi.net> <4A01C55B.8070109@shaw.ca> <4A01D096.6010604@fngi.net> <4A01E2AC.8040104@shaw.ca> <4A01EEDB.9090408@fngi.net> <1241647027.7942.61.camel@linux-2sym> <4A020CA7.4090809@fngi.net> <1241652295.7942.102.camel@linux-2sym> <4A0220C9.8060803@fngi.net> Message-ID: <4A022C3F.20008@shaw.ca> > John Lange wrote: >> My understanding is that providers in the US have objected to >> municipalities spending money to setup public internet access that >> competes with their services. There are some video presentations from Isenberg's F2C conference on MuniWireless. http://freedom-to-connect.net/ I believe the push back from telcos on municipalities setting up wireless networks is what prompted Isenberg to start the conferences called "Freedom to Connect". -- Bill From erik at sipthat.com Fri May 15 13:26:24 2009 From: erik at sipthat.com (Erik Lagerway) Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 11:26:24 -0700 Subject: [*] CDN SIP Trunking Beta Message-ID: <4eace7e60905151126g2440510fuee9702eaed995df9@mail.gmail.com> Hi all, We are getting closer to launching a expanded small business SIP trunking offer in Canada. We support 50+ markets across Canada and from our own testing I am seeing great QOS and MOS across the country. We need help from Asterisk (trixbox, switchbox, etc.), and other SIP capable PBX owners/users to test our SIP/VoIP service before we launch our expanded service. We will be giving away some stuff (not sure what yet) to those who participate and of course there is free calling across North America during the beta. Those interested should send an email to: beta at sipthat.com. Please include your PBX type, competency and level of interest. I am new to the list so I hope this does not come across as SPAM, we think we have something to offer, let's see if you agree! Cheers, Erik Lagerway -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.muug.mb.ca/pipermail/asterisk/attachments/20090515/75577697/attachment.html From sean at ertw.com Sun May 24 10:04:34 2009 From: sean at ertw.com (Sean Walberg) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 10:04:34 -0500 Subject: [*] So is it kamailio or opensips? Message-ID: I was just looking at OpenSER and see that last year, people forked it to Kamailio, and the owner of the original domain name forked it to opensips. There's little on the history page to explain what happened, other than there were some "trademark issues". Does anyone know which is the "true" version? e.g. if you wanted to use one, which would it be? Thanks, Sean -- Sean Walberg http://ertw.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.muug.mb.ca/pipermail/asterisk/attachments/20090524/86e36899/attachment.html From jim.vanmeggelen at coretel.ca Sun May 24 11:33:21 2009 From: jim.vanmeggelen at coretel.ca (Jim Van Meggelen) Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 11:33:21 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [*] So is it kamailio or opensips? In-Reply-To: <288814236.15321243182711920.JavaMail.root@mail-2.01.com> Message-ID: The project forked due to differences of vision between the two lead developers of OpenSER. From what I have gathered from conversations I have had with Daniel (Kamailio), Bogdan (OpenSIPS), and others in the community, my opinion is that the Kamailio folks are more focused on code stability, and carrier-grade performance, whereas the OpenSIPS community is going to be focused on embracing new technologies, and adding features. I think that both projects are served by a solid community, and have a passion for doing things right, and therefore neither one should be considered better than the other. Currently the two products are similar, and if you need SER-type functionality, both will serve well. I would recommend that you investigate the community of both projects, and see what suits you best. Hope that helps. Jim Van Meggelen +1-877-CORETEL (Canada) +1-866-644-7729 (USA) +1-416-425-6111 x6001 jim.vanmeggelen at coretel.ca http://www.coretel.ca http://www.iconverged.com http://downloads.oreilly.com/books/9780596510480.pdf ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Walberg" To: "Asterisk SIG" Sent: Sunday, 24 May, 2009 11:04:34 GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [*] So is it kamailio or opensips? I was just looking at OpenSER and see that last year, people forked it to Kamailio, and the owner of the original domain name forked it to opensips. There's little on the history page to explain what happened, other than there were some "trademark issues". Does anyone know which is the "true" version? e.g. if you wanted to use one, which would it be? Thanks, Sean -- Sean Walberg < sean at ertw.com > http://ertw.com/ _______________________________________________ Asterisk mailing list Asterisk at muug.mb.ca http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/asterisk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.muug.mb.ca/pipermail/asterisk/attachments/20090524/4219c154/attachment.html From billreid at shaw.ca Thu May 28 12:15:58 2009 From: billreid at shaw.ca (Bill Reid) Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 12:15:58 -0500 Subject: [*] Tues Meeting cancelled Message-ID: <4A1EC6CE.1090704@shaw.ca> Hi All, A few of us are not free on Tues so the meeting is cancelled. Have a great summer and we will see you in September. Take care, Bill From ve4drk at gmail.com Fri May 29 07:59:00 2009 From: ve4drk at gmail.com (Dan Keizer) Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 07:59:00 -0500 Subject: [*] Tues Meeting cancelled In-Reply-To: <4A1EC6CE.1090704@shaw.ca> References: <4A1EC6CE.1090704@shaw.ca> Message-ID: Noooooooooo... dang it ... was looking forward to seeing Les's new facilities setup ... :-( I'm going to have to head down during lunch one day :-) On a related note -- anyone use the spa3102 with asterisk? Any issues anyone notice with the bridging working/not working on occasion? I've had to reset my unit a few times in the past month as it was non-responsive -- I'm guessing a possible issue with bridging as I'm not using the router function ... Dan. On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Bill Reid wrote: > Hi All, > > A few of us are not free on Tues so the meeting is cancelled. > > Have a great summer and we will see you in September. > > Take care, > Bill > > _______________________________________________ > Asterisk mailing list > Asterisk at muug.mb.ca > http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/asterisk > From bill.newman at plumdee.ca Sun May 31 00:55:02 2009 From: bill.newman at plumdee.ca (Bill) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 00:55:02 -0500 Subject: [*] Tues Meeting cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <4A1EC6CE.1090704@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <4A221BB6.4070703@plumdee.ca> I'll meet you there for lunch Dan. When's good? Or could we come up with another evening in June for touring and drinking. Maybe Tue the 16th? Dan Keizer wrote: > Noooooooooo... > > dang it ... was looking forward to seeing Les's new facilities setup ... :-( > > I'm going to have to head down during lunch one day :-) > .... > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Bill Reid wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> A few of us are not free on Tues so the meeting is cancelled. >> >> Have a great summer and we will see you in September. >> >> Take care, >> Bill >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Asterisk mailing list >> Asterisk at muug.mb.ca >> http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/asterisk >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Asterisk mailing list > Asterisk at muug.mb.ca > http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/asterisk > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.45/2141 - Release Date: 05/29/09 06:28:00 > > -- Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Newman bill.newman.ca at gmail.com Winnipeg Manitoba From steven_nikkel at ertyu.org Sun May 31 20:52:33 2009 From: steven_nikkel at ertyu.org (Steven Nikkel) Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 20:52:33 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [*] Asterisk Digest, Vol 53, Issue 9 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm quite interested in seeing Les's setup as well. The 16th would be good for me. > I'll meet you there for lunch Dan. When's good? > > Or could we come up with another evening in June for touring and > drinking. Maybe Tue the 16th? > > Dan Keizer wrote: >> Noooooooooo... >> >> dang it ... was looking forward to seeing Les's new facilities setup ... :-( >> >> I'm going to have to head down during lunch one day :-) >> .... >> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Bill Reid wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> A few of us are not free on Tues so the meeting is cancelled. >>> >>> Have a great summer and we will see you in September. >>> >>> Take care, >>> Bill >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Asterisk mailing list >>> Asterisk at muug.mb.ca >>> http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/asterisk >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Asterisk mailing list >> Asterisk at muug.mb.ca >> http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/asterisk >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.45/2141 - Release Date: 05/29/09 06:28:00 >> >> > > -- > > Bill > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Bill Newman bill.newman.ca at gmail.com > Winnipeg Manitoba > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Asterisk mailing list > Asterisk at muug.mb.ca > http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/asterisk > > > End of Asterisk Digest, Vol 53, Issue 9 > *************************************** > --- Steven Nikkel steven_nikkel at ertyu.org