You can be sued for any reason at any time. You're not clear. You'll probably win and I expect you would. Think hot coffee litigation.
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 10, 2015 3:46 PM, "Josh Reynolds" <[email protected]> wrote: > I'll say this again: After consulting with no less than 3 legal firms who > specialize in communications/fcc law, we are in the clear. I'm not going to > get into a debate about the legality of this because (A) I'm not a lawyer > and (B) neither are you. We have been told that subscribers agree to the > restrictions on our network when they sign a contract. The language is the > same used for commercial services. > > Yes, the restriction applies to all torrent traffic. > > Josh Reynolds > CIO, SPITwSPOTSwww.spitwspots.com > > On 06/10/2015 11:37 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: > > IMO your only concern should be getting sued. Anyone that's torrenting > stuff probably doesn't have the money for a lawyer to do that. > > Do you do any CIR connections for businesses? Do you block them? > > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 3 > Troy, OH 45373 > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> And after that based on the legal advice we have received from no less >> than 3 Communications Lawyers >> >> Josh Reynolds >> CIO, SPITwSPOTSwww.spitwspots.com >> >> On 06/10/2015 09:41 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >> >> And you can legally do it until this Friday. >> >> *From:* Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:10 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz >> >> >> We have been blocking torrents as a network protection measure for over 6 >> years using various DPI and behavioral detection systems, and its in our >> AUP. We have never lost a customer or even had a complaint because of it. >> On Jun 10, 2015 4:56 AM, Mathew Howard <[email protected]> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Agreed. I don't even want to think about how many calls we would have to >> deal with if blocked VPNs... and torrents for that matter. >> >> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Yes and blindly killing things is a terrible practice. >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >> >> Midwest Internet Exchange >> http://www.midwest-ix.com >> >> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> >> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >> ------------------------------ >> *From: *"Paul McCall" <[email protected]> >> *To: *[email protected] >> *Sent: *Tuesday, June 9, 2015 11:12:43 PM >> >> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz >> >> Rory, how do you “kill torrents”? technically, >> >> >> >> And, aren’t there a lot o legitimate programs that use torrents as the >> distribution method? >> >> >> >> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Rory Conaway >> *Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2015 3:54 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz >> >> >> >> If you have file sharers on there for example, I’ve seen XM radios drop >> to 10Mbps or less (another reason we kill torrents). If you watch the >> modulation levels when that happens, you will also see them drop as the CPU >> load goes up. >> >> >> >> Rory >> >> >> >> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman >> *Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2015 12:46 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz >> >> >> >> PS in the run queue? That certainly isn't load, there's no way an XM >> radio can do 20+. >> >> >> >> >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Bill Prince <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I'm with Rory. It depends a lot on the traffic, and and what role it may >> be playing (backhaul, AP, or SM). This is just a 1 day snapshot of one in >> SM role. >> >> >> >> bp >> >> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >> >> >> >> On 6/8/2015 12:34 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: >> >> SSH into every single AP and it says 0.00 or 0.01. I used to graph it >> way back (maybe 5.3 days?) and I never saw it deviate. This is definitely >> all XM gear. >> >> >> >> >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Rory Conaway <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> I would have to se your data, mine does not support that. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse >> shortcuts or typos. >> >> >> >> Rory Conaway >> >> Triad Wireless >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Josh Luthman <[email protected]> >> Date: 06/08/2015 3:26 PM (GMT-05:00) >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz >> >> If that was the case why are the loads of every radio 0.01 or less? >> >> >> >> >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Rory Conaway <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> To prove my point further, if you do throughput testing with Ubiquity >> in ptmp mode, you will find with xm radios, cpu load affects modulation >> levels. I haven't tested xw radios yet but I believe the threshold is just >> higher and probably justifies 30mhz but it's going to be close. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse >> shortcuts or typos. >> >> >> >> Rory Conaway >> >> Triad Wireless >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> >> From: Rory Conaway <[email protected]> >> Date: 06/08/2015 3:16 PM (GMT-05:00) >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz >> >> The pps and cpu load absolutely is another variable you need to take into >> acount, especially with 400 and 526mhz atheros processors that are also >> running polling. Ignore it as part of your overall strategy and you could >> be wasting spectrum. If your ap never exceeds 80mbps, why do you want >> 30mhz channels. Sarcasm aside, does that help you understand my point. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse >> shortcuts or typos. >> >> >> >> Rory Conaway >> >> Triad Wireless >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >> Date: 06/08/2015 2:17 PM (GMT-05:00) >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz >> >> I think we are having two different conversations, and I have no idea >> what you are talking about right now. >> >> What we were discussing has to do with channel sizes, epmp, and ubiquiti. >> In particular, why UBNT 40mhz isn't any better than 30mhz in terms of >> efficiency. >> >> This part of the discussion has nothing at all to do with any theories on >> PPS you may have, other than those you have tried to inject into this >> discussion. >> >> On Jun 8, 2015 10:07 AM, Rory Conaway <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Excopt that as was mentioned before, the s/n ratio goes down and if you >> aren't hitting the limits of the physical layer in 20MHz, why do it? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse >> shortcuts or typos. >> >> >> >> Rory Conaway >> >> Triad Wireless >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >> Date: 06/08/2015 12:43 PM (GMT-05:00) >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz >> >> I can assure you that on radios connected in a ptp config or small ptmp, >> that you will see more throughput on the 30mhz channel given a noise floor >> of -97 and signals in the mid -50s, even with nothing connected on the >> other side of the radios. >> >> Its an efficiency issue. >> >> On Jun 8, 2015 8:13 AM, Mathew Howard <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I kind of does, the way I understood it, that bottleneck limited you from >> really being able to do anything beyond what a 30mhz channel could support. >> >> Now that I think about it, I have seen 40mhz perform better than 30mhz... >> but yes, that was because of RF problems, and neither one was doing >> anything close to what it would with a good link. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> That is a bottleneck in the system, but not relevant as far as this >> discussion goes. That has nothing to do with the 30/40MHz channel >> efficiency per say. >> >> On Jun 8, 2015 8:03 AM, Rory Conaway <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The limitation on the older xm radios was pps. When you added a lot of >> small packets and airmax, you could drop down to as low as 40Mbps. In the >> real world in ptmp mode. We planned for 50mhz per AP with eveything g taken >> into account. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse >> shortcuts or typos. >> >> >> >> Rory Conaway >> >> Triad Wireless >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >> Date: 06/08/2015 11:59 AM (GMT-05:00) >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz >> >> This. Thought it was pretty obvious but I guess I assumed too much out of >> some on this list ;) >> >> On Jun 8, 2015 7:33 AM, Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I think he is talking about using 40MHz channels on the older M series, >> that didn't have gig ports. It was my understanding that the processor >> would get taxed as well on a 40MHz channel, making 30MHz actually work >> better. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Josh Luthman <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Ubnt and epmp have gig ports. >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> On Jun 8, 2015 11:20 AM, "Josh Reynolds" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I don't know how epmp does it. >> >> For UBNT, a 30mhz channel is just a "fat" 20mhz channel in the atheros >> chip. Single operation. For a 40mhz channel, it's really two 20s, meaning >> radio operations are ran twice. Loss in efficiency, also marred by the lack >> of gigabit port. >> >> On Jun 8, 2015 7:13 AM, Mathew Howard <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I've never seeing much difference in performance on the ubnt M series >> between 30mhz and 40mhz channels, so yes, I would say that is true... but >> I'm not sure how much applies to ePMP - they do have a much a faster >> processor and on a software level they are very different. >> >> So far, I have been running all of our ePMP APs on 20mhz channels and PTP >> links on 40mhz or 20mhz, depending on how much capacity they need. I >> haven't really seen much need to go down to 10mhz channels with ePMP. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Shayne Lebrun <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> I seem to recall that with the M series, at least, a 30 mhz channel works >> 'better' than a 40 because the 40 is really two 20 mhz channels bonded >> together, where a 30 mhz channel is a 30 mhz channel. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway >> Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:32 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz >> >> I'm not that familiar with the ePMP's yet but I can tell you some things >> that we saw with Ubiquiti. One is that channel width does not scale with >> bandwidth that that Atheros chipset. For example, 40MHz channels rarely >> hit their theoretical maximum due to a variety of factors, noise, lower >> s/n, processor limitations, etc... Second, 20MHz channels seem to be the >> sweet spot but even with GPS sync, you have to deal with reflections. >> Third, 10MHz channels have more overhead as a percentage of total capacity >> and don't handle a lot of users well (above 40 for example with the older >> 400MHz chipsets. I'm starting to deploy XW radios with the 520MHz >> processors but everything is 20MHz now so I don't have a comparison). We >> did see peaks of 32Mbps with some customers on 10MHz channels but that's >> non-peak times. In peak times, we were seeing 8Mbps when more users were >> online. >> >> Rory >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Craig House >> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:20 PM >> To: [email protected] >> >> Subject: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz >> >> We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those >> towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are >> configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended >> up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back >> designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have >> tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability >> has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point >> I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will >> vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a >> 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless >> link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this >> poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have >> this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals >> and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that >> have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with >> -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my >> head a bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS on and change >> everything to 10mhz channels? Will a full cluster with ACS on work all on >> the same channel? >> I'm used to FSK where you pick your channel and any channels that are >> adjacent will cause problems with connected SM's. So am I just applying >> old knowledge to a technology that it doesn't apply to? >> >> Craig >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ...
