And if you could get then what you do with them?? Wimax mini-pci are client
side only there is no way to use them as a Wimax base stations. The protocol
does not allow for it and there is allot more to a base then a radio and
software. This is not to say someone could not hack a radio and hal to
It's 1 watt per MHz of channel width. It's up to the FCC to certify
something for more than 20 MHz of channel space.
--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Agreed. That's why I use higher powered cards is so that I regular power
level at high modulation.
--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent:
Well, what you have to do is include a number of gigs that cover typical and
slightly above typical usage. Structure it so only power users or P2P users
would top that usage.
For some new projects I'm working on, I'm considering a 50 gig package for
$50/month.
--
Mike Hammett
http://82.165.144.139/dtvkaku/launch_02.asp
about 3:25 in the video.
250 - 750 MHz
950 - 1450 MHz
1650 - 2150 MHz
That's what travels over the wires. The BBC would only make a difference on
the 3 cable from the BBC to the receiver.
--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
the OLSR folks have a pretty responsive mailing list - you might try
going straight to them.
- Japhy
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 8:21 PM, ralph [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi-
I'm trying to get familiar with setting up wireless mesh using the
Demarctech products. I'm very experienced with Tropos
That's good stuff. I wonder why we are still running two coax' on all of
our installs. Gotta ask our DTV trainers about that. Still, none of these
bands overlap bands we are using so that is a good thing.
- Original Message -
From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General
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
I definitely do not agree with what thay are doing to Comcast, except that
Comcast right out lied about it. The FCC should not be allowed to tell me
how I run my network. If they are going to do that, then they may as well
make internet regulated and make internet tariff's. I think the FCC would
I've seen both things happen.
marlon
- Original Message -
From: Mark McElvy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Mikrotik discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 12:15 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Weird signal levels
We had
We have one very large customer that uses 60 gig per month. They pay the
same price for that that they would for a t-1 in this area. $350 per month.
marlon
- Original Message -
From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008
Can anyone explain why the rule would encourage spectrum hogging?Use
wider channel = get more eirp???
insert witty tagline here
- Original Message -
From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday,
usage based means tiers of prices... No matter what you tell people or how
you warn them, if your bill this month is $100 and last month it was $25,
they WILL BE ANGRY.
Further, automating systems to bill per gig is kind of a pain.
The answer, then, I guess is... convenience.
usage based means tiers of prices... No matter what you tell people or how
you warn them, if your bill this month is $100 and last month it was $25,
they WILL BE ANGRY.
Further, automating systems to bill per gig is kind of a pain.
The answer, then, I guess is... convenience.
We were
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 1:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We can hack the MAC on atheros based chipsets.
If hacking th MAC is your thing I guess you can. I would rather pay for
companies to produce the properly designed and tested radio platforms and
sell Internet access to my customers. If I
We can hack the MAC on atheros based chipsets.
Well, could, if we could get some funding together and some sharp minds...
MIMO interests me too. Again, the same hackable chipsets...
insert witty tagline here
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL
The FCC must have been asleep when they set the rule this way. The rule
should have been the opposite. If you want high power then use narrow
channels and become more spectrally efficient. I am going to try to get a
little face time with Julie Knapp and see if he can explain to me how they
got
Hacking and atheros chipset wouldnt be the same as hacking a wimax chipset
gino
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 2:13 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mini-pci WIMAX cards and drivers... Available
My same way of thinking, what the fcc was thinking?
gino
-Original Message-
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 2:49 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.650 Wimax in the field
The FCC must have been asleep when they set the
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.
I have 60 customers that I loose money on every month. I can afford the
implementation for what I will gain in
I'm not an engineer, but from what I understand when you apply 20 dBm to
channels of different widths, the same gross power is spread out. Each Hz
receives less power in a wider channel. This rule allows the larger
channels to not face the power punishment.
Spectral efficiency has little to
Right, Mike. The FCC's thinking appears to be power density and not
just straight power. This is why, with the same power, you will see
roughly a 3dB RX increase from cutting the channel size in half.
-Hal
-Original Message-
From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: WISPA General
I believe our only chance at mobile devices is TV whitespaces. 900 is too
full of other things and 3.65 doesn't have enough penetration.
There is at least one other company working on non-802.11 non 802.16
equipment for 3.65 GHz and 5 GHz with all of these features and 900 MHz with
some (I'm
Shannon theorm states that a channel capacity is constrained by the
following equation:
C=B log(2)(1+S/N)
Where the capacity of the channel is C, B is the bandwidth of the channel, S
is signal and N is noise.
Rearranging terms and holding some things constant. Lets consider noise and
signal
Has anyone gotten any headway on company negotiations in protected zones?
Almost all of the zones near me (105km is the closest to the SW, 146.7km
next closest to the South) and I have no desire to point coverage in that
direction - mainly north and northwest. But according to the FCC, I'd be
Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
Has anyone gotten any headway on company negotiations in protected zones?
Almost all of the zones near me (105km is the closest to the SW, 146.7km
next closest to the South) and I have no desire to point coverage in that
direction - mainly north and northwest. But
I've read your blogs and have been keeping up with them. What I can't seem
to find is the ULS registrations for the actual earth satellite stations.
It seems like most other ULS entires, they have a contact address and a
person's name.
I did a Geosearch of Orange County, FL (the Sprint
In a couple years NASA's not going to be using the shuttles anymore, so
they'll be easier to get a hold of. ;-)
--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Doug Ratcliffe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List
Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
Has anyone gotten any headway on company negotiations in protected zones?
For better or for worse my blog posts seem to be the only material of
substance I can find on the subject.
I wish that wasn't the case. :)
Almost all of the zones near me (105km is the closest
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
With byte cap tiers (the majority of deployment plans outside of the US,
by the way) the most likely leak are the youngsters on the home computer
network. The solution to leak shock is communication...well before the
limit is reached if it is climbing rapidly and at, for example, 75% and
100%.
Could have a program or site that shows current usage and encourage they
monitor it... or email them an alert when it appears they'll pass their
allowance.
Maybe an ntop page that breaks down types of usage.
--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Hi Doug...I've been doing this since January and it's been very slow.
Comsearch seems to rep many of the FSSes. As soon as I have more info on
where we are I'll post it or you can contact me off list.
Thanks leon
* Doug Ratcliffe wrote, On 7/27/2008 6:16 PM:
Has anyone gotten any headway on
Yep. We have 4 grandfathered sites in our region. One signed off, one is
deactive with the license surendered, one is att, and the 4th is sprint.
I hope to have sprint and att signed off in the next 30 days
---
airCloud Communications
Jerry Richardson
I used to live in Boca Raton and my ham repeater is still on the air
down there. We're also doing some 3650 in Florida as well. Currently
we're 4 miles just west of the 150km zone so we're in the clear.
I've had numerous calls with higherups at the WTB on this over the last
few months.
Leon
Then could someone explain how this works out in real life?
The problem I have here, is that it appears that if we deploy some 3 or 5
mhz channels, we're going to be severely hampered EIRP-wise, from reaching
any distance at all.
Now, the UBNT XR3's are certified for a 5, 10, and 20 mzh
Fully agree John. All this does was reproduce the Wmux/tsunami problem that
plaqued 2.4 and 5.8 WISPs.
Important that when we pitch lite licensed like 3650, that we are only
talking about the AP registration, and part90, and NOT the power level
rules.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL Wireless, Inc
The differences is...
The consumer can see the pool full of water, as it fills.
The consumer can't see the bit-torrent traffic as it fills their usage
budget.
Or for that matter, they can't see their bandwidth usage pool filling with
any type of traffic.
There is no perception of traffic size,
38 matches
Mail list logo
