[AFMUG] any reason to not use this cable underground in conduit?

[Paul McCall]

http://www.fs.com/products/29610.html

We have about 550 feet to distribute to 40 unit MDU situation.  Thinking of 
using 2 of these in 24 count to save me some termination work.  The main 
question is, if we pull this in conduit, would the cable hold up long term?  
Obviously, we seal the conduit, but if/when water got into the conduit, would 
the cable jacket hold up over time?

?

Paul McCall, President
PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
658 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, FL 32962
772-564-6800
pa...@pdmnet.net
www.pdmnet.com
www.floridabroadband.com

Re: [AFMUG] CISCO VLAN question

[Timothy Steele]

All you Cisco lovers will hate me but just get a unfi setup what you are
doing would literally be like 5 clicks and done

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017, 12:38 PM Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> VLAN is 1998 - wow!
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Dave  wrote:
>
> Yes..
>  I come from the 1990 era of Cisco LOL
>
>
>
> On 04/07/2017 10:29 AM, Cassidy B. Larson wrote:
>
> switchport trunk native vlan sounds like what you’re after?
> It’ll pass an untagged vlan across a trunk port.
>
>
> On Apr 7, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Dave   
> wrote:
>
> Ok,
> So I want to manage my radio link and provide public access over that link.
> How do I configure my Cisco for switchport trunk to allow the customer to 
> connect at the other end with a sonicwall for his public ip?
> So the topology of this is
> Vlan 1000 is a managed vlan
> Vlan 2400 is the public access vlan
> Cisco port is mode trunk dot1q to allow both vlans but since the customer 
> dont have a vlan to configure on his sonic wall I would need my radios to 
> allow
> switchport access of 2400
>
> Is there a way to tell the cisco to allow switchport access for vlan2400 on 
> the same trunked port?
>
> Any ideas will be helpful
>
> Thanks
> Dave
>
> --
> 
>
>
> --
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Bonded links and signal degradation

[Eric Kuhnke]

First, enable link state propagation on the radios if you haven't already,
so that when the link is totally out (in a bad rain storm) it will bring
down the optics simulating a cut fiber cable. The rest depends on how
diverse the paths in and out of that site are.

If both links are in parallel with each other on the same path, they should
fade equally, except for the raindrop difference between H and V if you're
running this as a setup with four radios + two OMTs + two dishes.

Assuming you have a manually configured OSPF cost for a 10GbE link on the
router interfaces on both sides of the link, dealing with a link that
changes data rates (and therefore its OSPF cost) proportionally with its
current modulation rate can be tricky.

If I had to do it, I'd write some custom shell script or python that ran on
a trusted internal network system, watching an SNMP OID on the radios on
both ends for current modulation rate (example: SNMP poll result of 2 = 4
Gbps, 5 = 6 Gbps, 6 = 10Gb full data rate). Then use the results from that
SNMP poll to, in a fully automated way, maintain a persistent ssh session
to the routers on both ends of the link and change both ends' OSPF
interface costs on the fly, repeatedly, until the rain fade event had
passed. This could be done at 5-second intervals.



On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Michael Gawlowski 
wrote:

> We have some bonded links (2x10Gbps) going up that may experience rain
> fade.  What would you recommend for routing protocols/QoS methods that can
> adjust to changing throughput capacity? I was thinking of an OSPF equal
> cost load balancing option with QOS but we still run in to the problem of
> adapting to the available throughput.
>
>
>
> Is SDN pretty much the only option?  I found Cisco’s onePK platform but
> didn’t want to go that route unless absolutely necessary.  Something that
> works with MikroTik would be much more cost effective.
>
>
>
> *Thank you,*
>
> *Mike Gawlowski*
>
> *Triad Wireless, LLC*
>
>
>
> 4226 S. 37th St
>
> Phoenix, AZ 85040
>
> (602)-426-0542
>
> Triadwireless.net
>
>
>
>
>

[AFMUG] Bonded links and signal degradation

[Michael Gawlowski]

We have some bonded links (2x10Gbps) going up that may experience rain fade.  
What would you recommend for routing protocols/QoS methods that can adjust to 
changing throughput capacity? I was thinking of an OSPF equal cost load 
balancing option with QOS but we still run in to the problem of adapting to the 
available throughput.

Is SDN pretty much the only option?  I found Cisco's onePK platform but didn't 
want to go that route unless absolutely necessary.  Something that works with 
MikroTik would be much more cost effective.

Thank you,
Mike Gawlowski
Triad Wireless, LLC

4226 S. 37th St
Phoenix, AZ 85040
(602)-426-0542
Triadwireless.net

Re: [AFMUG] Cable documentation

[dmmoffett]

They twist the buffer tubes around each other in a loose tube cable.  It's so 
when you make a coil you're not putting all the stress on the fibers on the 
outside of the coil, but rather it's spread evenly.


Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 7, 2017, at 6:06 PM, Justin Wilson  wrote:
> 
> The line guys would do the following at the local phone company I worked out 
> many many years ago.  I am sure there are lots of better ways to do it with 
> modern processes.
> 
> The cared about a few things.  Where can I find the splice points? Where can 
> I find vaults? Where are my slack points on the path and how much is left or 
> do I have? How do I do all this in the middle of the night during the rain? 
> During install it was specified where the slack loops happen.  They would 
> care about the overall material used when running cable.  If they ran down a 
> road to a vault all they cared about was how much length off the spool was 
> used. This was documented.  
> 
> Once everything was installed the certification notes were included in the 
> construction closeout drawings and put in an appendix at the back of the 
> book.  The linemen did not care about such things. 
> 
> I typical do not see fiber being in a twisted pair type of configuration.  
> Not sure what everyone else uses, but all the ones I pull apart are side by 
> side.  I think there is even a “how it’s made” on fiber optic cable and it 
> has a machine that makes sure they do not get twisted.
> 
> Just my .02.
> 
> 
> Justin Wilson
> j...@mtin.net
> 
> ---
> http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO
> xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth
> 
> http://www.midwest-ix.com  COO/Chairman
> Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric
> 
>> On Apr 7, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
>> 
>> I started a spreadsheet to document a fiber line.  I figure I'll make a new 
>> file for each cable, a worksheet for notes on the cable as a whole, a 
>> worksheet for each buffer tube, and a color coded column for each fiber.  
>> Each row will be 100'.  My thought was, if I have a splice enclosure 4200' 
>> down the line, I'll go down to row 42 and enter "Splice enclosure on pole 
>> 305".  Then I can note on each fiber whether it passes through the 
>> enclosure, or note what it splices to, including a reference to another file 
>> if necessary. 
>> 
>> I understand they used to do something similar with 3-ring binders for 
>> mapping the pairs on phone lines.
>> 
>> The first question I ran into was which distance do I go by:
>> The actual distance the line has traveled
>> The cable length, which will be ~15-20% longer due to slack loops
>> The fiber length, which will be longer still due to the built in 
>> twist.but is easily measurable with an OTDR.
>> All three somehow?
>> 
>> Is this even a smart method?  Plan B is to use GIS.  I can add every pole, 
>> cable, and enclosure as objects in their actual location with properties 
>> describing the actual distance, cable length, fiber length and anything else 
>> I want.
>> 
>> That would be technically better, but I'm the only one here who can use the 
>> GIS software whereas any boob can type into a spreadsheet.  If I use a 
>> Google sheet then multiple people can use the same sheets and fill them in 
>> from their phone. 
>> 
>> I'm sure these problems have been solved before, so what do you all do?
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Cable documentation

[Justin Wilson]

The line guys would do the following at the local phone company I worked out 
many many years ago.  I am sure there are lots of better ways to do it with 
modern processes.

The cared about a few things.  Where can I find the splice points? Where can I 
find vaults? Where are my slack points on the path and how much is left or do I 
have? How do I do all this in the middle of the night during the rain? During 
install it was specified where the slack loops happen.  They would care about 
the overall material used when running cable.  If they ran down a road to a 
vault all they cared about was how much length off the spool was used. This was 
documented.  

Once everything was installed the certification notes were included in the 
construction closeout drawings and put in an appendix at the back of the book.  
The linemen did not care about such things. 

I typical do not see fiber being in a twisted pair type of configuration.  Not 
sure what everyone else uses, but all the ones I pull apart are side by side.  
I think there is even a “how it’s made” on fiber optic cable and it has a 
machine that makes sure they do not get twisted.

Just my .02.


Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net

---
http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO
xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth

http://www.midwest-ix.com  COO/Chairman
Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric

> On Apr 7, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
> 
> I started a spreadsheet to document a fiber line.  I figure I'll make a new 
> file for each cable, a worksheet for notes on the cable as a whole, a 
> worksheet for each buffer tube, and a color coded column for each fiber.  
> Each row will be 100'.  My thought was, if I have a splice enclosure 4200' 
> down the line, I'll go down to row 42 and enter "Splice enclosure on pole 
> 305".  Then I can note on each fiber whether it passes through the enclosure, 
> or note what it splices to, including a reference to another file if 
> necessary. 
> 
> I understand they used to do something similar with 3-ring binders for 
> mapping the pairs on phone lines.
> 
> The first question I ran into was which distance do I go by:
> The actual distance the line has traveled
> The cable length, which will be ~15-20% longer due to slack loops
> The fiber length, which will be longer still due to the built in 
> twist.but is easily measurable with an OTDR.
> All three somehow?
> 
> Is this even a smart method?  Plan B is to use GIS.  I can add every pole, 
> cable, and enclosure as objects in their actual location with properties 
> describing the actual distance, cable length, fiber length and anything else 
> I want.
> 
> That would be technically better, but I'm the only one here who can use the 
> GIS software whereas any boob can type into a spreadsheet.  If I use a Google 
> sheet then multiple people can use the same sheets and fill them in from 
> their phone. 
> 
> I'm sure these problems have been solved before, so what do you all do?

Re: [AFMUG] 4 Port ATA ?

[Paul McCall]

Gotcha!  That’s what we were thinking worse case

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of can...@believewireless.net
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 5:11 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 4 Port ATA ?

​We had horrible luck with that device. We ended up swapping them for two 
2-port ATAs.​

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Paul McCall 
> wrote:
Anybody had good success with a 4 port ATA such as …   
https://www.amazon.com/Grandstream-GS-HT704-Analog-Telephone-Adapter/dp/B007PEJK78
   ??

Paul McCall, President
PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
658 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, FL 32962
772-564-6800
pa...@pdmnet.net
www.pdmnet.com
www.floridabroadband.com

Re: [AFMUG] 4 Port ATA ?

[can...@believewireless.net]

​We had horrible luck with that device. We ended up swapping them for two
2-port ATAs.​

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Paul McCall  wrote:

> Anybody had good success with a 4 port ATA such as …
> https://www.amazon.com/Grandstream-GS-HT704-Analog-Telephone-Adapter/dp/
> B007PEJK78   ??
>
>
>
> Paul McCall, President
>
> PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
>
> 658 Old Dixie Highway
>
> Vero Beach, FL 32962
>
> 772-564-6800 <(772)%20564-6800>
>
> pa...@pdmnet.net
>
> www.pdmnet.com
>
> www.floridabroadband.com
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

[Hanson]

Please don't let that be an excuse to drop it!

At least give us the ability to turn it on or off if you're headed that 
way
Then we can decide if it's worth the performance hit over ease of 
monitoring...




On 04/07/2017 04:14 PM, Rick Harnish wrote:


SNMP eats up a lot of resource blocks in LTE.  With limited UL 
resource blocks, it can cause performance problems.


Respectfully,

-BaiCells_Tiny3-

Rick Harnish

**

Director of WISP Markets

Baicells Technologies North America, Inc.

Mobile: (972) 922-1443

rick.harn...@baicells.com

www.facebook.com/baicells

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
*Sent:* Friday, April 7, 2017 4:01 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

We have something like 20% of our Wimax customers converted to LTE.

Throughput is better in most cases.  Latency is about half.

nLOS success is usually similar to Wimax, but we've had a few 
surprises.  Some CPE actually got worse, but they were generally 
fixable with antenna adjustment.  Apparently due to layer1 differences 
they may respond differently to nearby objects.  One specific thing i 
can think of is if you have the CPE mounted on the side of the house 
such that it looks the long way down the house.Wimax doesn't seem 
to care about having the house next to your path, but LTE did not like 
that (SNR went from 25 to 5 in one such case).  In another case, the 
path turned out to be just barely through dirt.  It was clipping the 
edge of the hill.  Wimax worked with a marginally acceptable signal, 
but LTE had no connection at all.  I think that was the only one we 
lost.and really with dirt in the way I'm sure we would have 
eventually had a problem with the Wimax too.


I like Telrad's Breezeview software.  They're going to add some TR-69 
support in the next release so Breezeview can be the configuration 
server for your CPE, and I'm really looking forward to that.


My only complaint is that there are still some bugs that I can't live 
with.  It has been getting better with each software release, so I 
feel like we're getting closer to victory.


I really really wish the Telrad equipment supported SNMP.  I 
understand the technical benefits of NetConf and TR-69, but SNMP 
software is cheap/free whereas right now software for TR-69 and 
NetConf are both $$$.  Ultimately I think they're on a path to getting 
us good data via Breezeview, which will collect a blend of data from 
the Base Station and the CPE, and what we're paying for Breezeview is 
not as much as we would pay for a TR-69 ACS and an NMS supporting 
NetConf.  I still wish there was SNMPbut I think we'll get along 
with Breezeview.


The LTE only UE (Telrad 8000) is better than any of the Wimax CPE I've 
seen...and somehow it's also cheaper.


Anyway, LTE is a viable alternative to Wimax.  You will pay more for 
it than you did for Wimax regardless of who the vendor is.  There is 
also a learning curvethere's a different set of terminology for 
everything and more acronyms than you can shake a stick at.


-- Original Message --

From: "SmarterBroadband" >

To: af@afmug.com 

Sent: 4/7/2017 3:09:47 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

Like you we use Telrad WiMAX.  It has been good for us.  We will
also transition to LTE soon.

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
*Sent:* Friday, April 7, 2017 11:14 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

We still have it, yes.  Transitioning to LTE.

If you like-hated wimax, then you'll like-hate LTE even more.

If you loved Wimax, then I don't think we can be friends.

-- Original Message --

From: "Philip Rankin" >

To: "af" >

Sent: 4/7/2017 1:56:26 PM

Subject: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

Is anyone still operating 3.65 Wimax?

Has any other technology/wireless protocol come along that can
compete with Wimax's superior nLos capability?  At any other
bands?  I have no interest in 900.

Thanks in advance for any feedback!

-- 


Philip J. Rankin

Wireless Telecommunications Services
PO Box 24
Pittsburg, KS  66762

[AFMUG] 4 Port ATA ?

[Paul McCall]

Anybody had good success with a 4 port ATA such as ...   
https://www.amazon.com/Grandstream-GS-HT704-Analog-Telephone-Adapter/dp/B007PEJK78
   ??

Paul McCall, President
PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
658 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, FL 32962
772-564-6800
pa...@pdmnet.net
www.pdmnet.com
www.floridabroadband.com

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

[Adam Moffett]

Yup, I did mean all network elements.


-- Original Message --
From: "Nathan Anderson" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 4/7/2017 4:20:14 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

Why does it necessarily cause more performance problems than TR-69?  
Wouldn't TCP-based TR-69 have more overhead than UDP-based SNMP?  
Genuinely curious about this because this is not the first time I have 
heard this claim.




I don't mean to speak for him, but just based on what he said and how 
it was phrased, I suspect that Adam wasn't necessarily just complaining 
about lack of SNMP in CPE (in which case he could just standardize on 
CPE7000 anyway, which actually has SNMP + full MIB available), but in 
all network elements (eNB, EPC if you have centralized EPC, etc.).  UL 
resource blocks available to UEs would have no bearing on the ability 
to manage an eNB with SNMP.




-- Nathan



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rick Harnish
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 1:15 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax



SNMP eats up a lot of resource blocks in LTE.  With limited UL resource 
blocks, it can cause performance problems.




Respectfully,



--

Rick Harnish



Director of WISP Markets



Baicells Technologies North America, Inc. 

Mobile:  (972) 922-1443



rick.harn...@baicells.com

www.facebook.com/baicells





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 4:01 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax



We have something like 20% of our Wimax customers converted to LTE.

Throughput is better in most cases.  Latency is about half.



nLOS success is usually similar to Wimax, but we've had a few 
surprises.  Some CPE actually got worse, but they were generally 
fixable with antenna adjustment.  Apparently due to layer1 differences 
they may respond differently to nearby objects.  One specific thing i 
can think of is if you have the CPE mounted on the side of the house 
such that it looks the long way down the house.Wimax doesn't seem 
to care about having the house next to your path, but LTE did not like 
that (SNR went from 25 to 5 in one such case).  In another case, the 
path turned out to be just barely through dirt.  It was clipping the 
edge of the hill.  Wimax worked with a marginally acceptable signal, 
but LTE had no connection at all.  I think that was the only one we 
lost.and really with dirt in the way I'm sure we would have 
eventually had a problem with the Wimax too.




I like Telrad's Breezeview software.  They're going to add some TR-69 
support in the next release so Breezeview can be the configuration 
server for your CPE, and I'm really looking forward to that.




My only complaint is that there are still some bugs that I can't live 
with.  It has been getting better with each software release, so I feel 
like we're getting closer to victory.




I really really wish the Telrad equipment supported SNMP.  I understand 
the technical benefits of NetConf and TR-69, but SNMP software is 
cheap/free whereas right now software for TR-69 and NetConf are both 
$$$.  Ultimately I think they're on a path to getting us good data via 
Breezeview, which will collect a blend of data from the Base Station 
and the CPE, and what we're paying for Breezeview is not as much as we 
would pay for a TR-69 ACS and an NMS supporting NetConf.  I still wish 
there was SNMPbut I think we'll get along with Breezeview.




The LTE only UE (Telrad 8000) is better than any of the Wimax CPE I've 
seen...and somehow it's also cheaper.




Anyway, LTE is a viable alternative to Wimax.  You will pay more for it 
than you did for Wimax regardless of who the vendor is.  There is also 
a learning curvethere's a different set of terminology for 
everything and more acronyms than you can shake a stick at.










-- Original Message --

From: "SmarterBroadband" 

To: af@afmug.com 

Sent: 4/7/2017 3:09:47 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax



Like you we use Telrad WiMAX.  It has been good for us.  We will also 
transition to LTE soon.








From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 11:14 AM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax



We still have it, yes.  Transitioning to LTE.

If you like-hated wimax, then you'll like-hate LTE even more.



If you loved Wimax, then I don't think we can be friends.





-- Original Message --

From: "Philip Rankin" 

To: "af" 

Sent: 4/7/2017 1:56:26 PM

Subject: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax




Is anyone still operating 3.65 Wimax?



Has any other technology/wireless protocol come along that can 
compete with Wimax's superior nLos capability?  At any other bands?  
I have no interest in 900.




Thanks in advance for any feedback!



--

Philip J. Rankin

Wireless Telecommunications 

[AFMUG] Cable documentation

[Adam Moffett]

I started a spreadsheet to document a fiber line.  I figure I'll make a 
new file for each cable, a worksheet for notes on the cable as a whole, 
a worksheet for each buffer tube, and a color coded column for each 
fiber.  Each row will be 100'.  My thought was, if I have a splice 
enclosure 4200' down the line, I'll go down to row 42 and enter "Splice 
enclosure on pole 305".  Then I can note on each fiber whether it passes 
through the enclosure, or note what it splices to, including a reference 
to another file if necessary.


I understand they used to do something similar with 3-ring binders for 
mapping the pairs on phone lines.


The first question I ran into was which distance do I go by:
The actual distance the line has traveled
The cable length, which will be ~15-20% longer due to slack loops
The fiber length, which will be longer still due to the built in 
twist.but is easily measurable with an OTDR.

All three somehow?

Is this even a smart method?  Plan B is to use GIS.  I can add every 
pole, cable, and enclosure as objects in their actual location with 
properties describing the actual distance, cable length, fiber length 
and anything else I want.


That would be technically better, but I'm the only one here who can use 
the GIS software whereas any boob can type into a spreadsheet.  If I use 
a Google sheet then multiple people can use the same sheets and fill 
them in from their phone.


I'm sure these problems have been solved before, so what do you all do?

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

[Nathan Anderson]

Why does it necessarily cause more performance problems than TR-69?  Wouldn't 
TCP-based TR-69 have more overhead than UDP-based SNMP?  Genuinely curious 
about this because this is not the first time I have heard this claim.

I don't mean to speak for him, but just based on what he said and how it was 
phrased, I suspect that Adam wasn't necessarily just complaining about lack of 
SNMP in CPE (in which case he could just standardize on CPE7000 anyway, which 
actually has SNMP + full MIB available), but in all network elements (eNB, EPC 
if you have centralized EPC, etc.).  UL resource blocks available to UEs would 
have no bearing on the ability to manage an eNB with SNMP.

-- Nathan

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rick Harnish
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 1:15 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

SNMP eats up a lot of resource blocks in LTE.  With limited UL resource blocks, 
it can cause performance problems.

Respectfully,

-[BaiCells_Tiny3]-
Rick Harnish

Director of WISP Markets

Baicells Technologies North America, Inc.
Mobile:  (972) 922-1443

rick.harn...@baicells.com
www.facebook.com/baicells


From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 4:01 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

We have something like 20% of our Wimax customers converted to LTE.
Throughput is better in most cases.  Latency is about half.

nLOS success is usually similar to Wimax, but we've had a few surprises.  Some 
CPE actually got worse, but they were generally fixable with antenna 
adjustment.  Apparently due to layer1 differences they may respond differently 
to nearby objects.  One specific thing i can think of is if you have the CPE 
mounted on the side of the house such that it looks the long way down the 
house.Wimax doesn't seem to care about having the house next to your path, 
but LTE did not like that (SNR went from 25 to 5 in one such case).  In another 
case, the path turned out to be just barely through dirt.  It was clipping the 
edge of the hill.  Wimax worked with a marginally acceptable signal, but LTE 
had no connection at all.  I think that was the only one we lost.and really 
with dirt in the way I'm sure we would have eventually had a problem with the 
Wimax too.

I like Telrad's Breezeview software.  They're going to add some TR-69 support 
in the next release so Breezeview can be the configuration server for your CPE, 
and I'm really looking forward to that.

My only complaint is that there are still some bugs that I can't live with.  It 
has been getting better with each software release, so I feel like we're 
getting closer to victory.

I really really wish the Telrad equipment supported SNMP.  I understand the 
technical benefits of NetConf and TR-69, but SNMP software is cheap/free 
whereas right now software for TR-69 and NetConf are both $$$.  Ultimately I 
think they're on a path to getting us good data via Breezeview, which will 
collect a blend of data from the Base Station and the CPE, and what we're 
paying for Breezeview is not as much as we would pay for a TR-69 ACS and an NMS 
supporting NetConf.  I still wish there was SNMPbut I think we'll get along 
with Breezeview.

The LTE only UE (Telrad 8000) is better than any of the Wimax CPE I've 
seen...and somehow it's also cheaper.

Anyway, LTE is a viable alternative to Wimax.  You will pay more for it than 
you did for Wimax regardless of who the vendor is.  There is also a learning 
curvethere's a different set of terminology for everything and more 
acronyms than you can shake a stick at.




-- Original Message --
From: "SmarterBroadband" >
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 4/7/2017 3:09:47 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

Like you we use Telrad WiMAX.  It has been good for us.  We will also 
transition to LTE soon.



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 11:14 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

We still have it, yes.  Transitioning to LTE.
If you like-hated wimax, then you'll like-hate LTE even more.

If you loved Wimax, then I don't think we can be friends.


-- Original Message --
From: "Philip Rankin" >
To: "af" >
Sent: 4/7/2017 1:56:26 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

Is anyone still operating 3.65 Wimax?

Has any other technology/wireless protocol come along that can compete with 
Wimax's superior nLos capability?  At any other bands?  I have no interest in 
900.

Thanks in advance for any feedback!

--
Philip J. Rankin
Wireless Telecommunications Services
PO Box 24
Pittsburg, KS  66762

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

[Rick Harnish]

SNMP eats up a lot of resource blocks in LTE.  With limited UL resource blocks, 
it can cause performance problems.  

 

Respectfully,

 

--

Rick Harnish

 

Director of WISP Markets

 

  Baicells Technologies North America, Inc.

Mobile:  (972) 922-1443

 

  rick.harn...@baicells.com

  www.facebook.com/baicells

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 4:01 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

 

We have something like 20% of our Wimax customers converted to LTE.

Throughput is better in most cases.  Latency is about half.

 

nLOS success is usually similar to Wimax, but we've had a few surprises.  Some 
CPE actually got worse, but they were generally fixable with antenna 
adjustment.  Apparently due to layer1 differences they may respond differently 
to nearby objects.  One specific thing i can think of is if you have the CPE 
mounted on the side of the house such that it looks the long way down the 
house.Wimax doesn't seem to care about having the house next to your path, 
but LTE did not like that (SNR went from 25 to 5 in one such case).  In another 
case, the path turned out to be just barely through dirt.  It was clipping the 
edge of the hill.  Wimax worked with a marginally acceptable signal, but LTE 
had no connection at all.  I think that was the only one we lost.and really 
with dirt in the way I'm sure we would have eventually had a problem with the 
Wimax too.

 

I like Telrad's Breezeview software.  They're going to add some TR-69 support 
in the next release so Breezeview can be the configuration server for your CPE, 
and I'm really looking forward to that.

 

My only complaint is that there are still some bugs that I can't live with.  It 
has been getting better with each software release, so I feel like we're 
getting closer to victory.  

 

I really really wish the Telrad equipment supported SNMP.  I understand the 
technical benefits of NetConf and TR-69, but SNMP software is cheap/free 
whereas right now software for TR-69 and NetConf are both $$$.  Ultimately I 
think they're on a path to getting us good data via Breezeview, which will 
collect a blend of data from the Base Station and the CPE, and what we're 
paying for Breezeview is not as much as we would pay for a TR-69 ACS and an NMS 
supporting NetConf.  I still wish there was SNMPbut I think we'll get along 
with Breezeview.

 

The LTE only UE (Telrad 8000) is better than any of the Wimax CPE I've 
seen...and somehow it's also cheaper.

 

Anyway, LTE is a viable alternative to Wimax.  You will pay more for it than 
you did for Wimax regardless of who the vendor is.  There is also a learning 
curvethere's a different set of terminology for everything and more 
acronyms than you can shake a stick at.

 

 

 

 

-- Original Message --

From: "SmarterBroadband"  >

To: af@afmug.com  

Sent: 4/7/2017 3:09:47 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

 

Like you we use Telrad WiMAX.  It has been good for us.  We will also 
transition to LTE soon.

 

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com  ] On Behalf 
Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 11:14 AM
To: af@afmug.com  
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

 

We still have it, yes.  Transitioning to LTE.

If you like-hated wimax, then you'll like-hate LTE even more.

 

If you loved Wimax, then I don't think we can be friends.

 

 

-- Original Message --

From: "Philip Rankin"  >

To: "af"  >

Sent: 4/7/2017 1:56:26 PM

Subject: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

 

Is anyone still operating 3.65 Wimax?

 

Has any other technology/wireless protocol come along that can compete with 
Wimax's superior nLos capability?  At any other bands?  I have no interest in 
900.

 

Thanks in advance for any feedback!


 

-- 

Philip J. Rankin

Wireless Telecommunications Services
PO Box 24
Pittsburg, KS  66762

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

[Adam Moffett]

We have something like 20% of our Wimax customers converted to LTE.
Throughput is better in most cases.  Latency is about half.

nLOS success is usually similar to Wimax, but we've had a few surprises. 
 Some CPE actually got worse, but they were generally fixable with 
antenna adjustment.  Apparently due to layer1 differences they may 
respond differently to nearby objects.  One specific thing i can think 
of is if you have the CPE mounted on the side of the house such that it 
looks the long way down the house.Wimax doesn't seem to care about 
having the house next to your path, but LTE did not like that (SNR went 
from 25 to 5 in one such case).  In another case, the path turned out to 
be just barely through dirt.  It was clipping the edge of the hill.  
Wimax worked with a marginally acceptable signal, but LTE had no 
connection at all.  I think that was the only one we lost.and really 
with dirt in the way I'm sure we would have eventually had a problem 
with the Wimax too.


I like Telrad's Breezeview software.  They're going to add some TR-69 
support in the next release so Breezeview can be the configuration 
server for your CPE, and I'm really looking forward to that.


My only complaint is that there are still some bugs that I can't live 
with.  It has been getting better with each software release, so I feel 
like we're getting closer to victory.


I really really wish the Telrad equipment supported SNMP.  I understand 
the technical benefits of NetConf and TR-69, but SNMP software is 
cheap/free whereas right now software for TR-69 and NetConf are both 
$$$.  Ultimately I think they're on a path to getting us good data via 
Breezeview, which will collect a blend of data from the Base Station and 
the CPE, and what we're paying for Breezeview is not as much as we would 
pay for a TR-69 ACS and an NMS supporting NetConf.  I still wish there 
was SNMPbut I think we'll get along with Breezeview.


The LTE only UE (Telrad 8000) is better than any of the Wimax CPE I've 
seen...and somehow it's also cheaper.


Anyway, LTE is a viable alternative to Wimax.  You will pay more for it 
than you did for Wimax regardless of who the vendor is.  There is also a 
learning curvethere's a different set of terminology for everything 
and more acronyms than you can shake a stick at.





-- Original Message --
From: "SmarterBroadband" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 4/7/2017 3:09:47 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

Like you we use Telrad WiMAX.  It has been good for us.  We will also 
transition to LTE soon.








From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 11:14 AM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax



We still have it, yes.  Transitioning to LTE.

If you like-hated wimax, then you'll like-hate LTE even more.



If you loved Wimax, then I don't think we can be friends.





-- Original Message --

From: "Philip Rankin" 

To: "af" 

Sent: 4/7/2017 1:56:26 PM

Subject: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax




Is anyone still operating 3.65 Wimax?



Has any other technology/wireless protocol come along that can compete 
with Wimax's superior nLos capability?  At any other bands?  I have no 
interest in 900.




Thanks in advance for any feedback!



--

Philip J. Rankin

Wireless Telecommunications Services
PO Box 24
Pittsburg, KS  66762

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

[Mathew Howard]

Yes, 450 is a different animal. Don't expect to 450 to have particularly
good NLOS capabilities, or work well with crummy signal like wimax or lte
does. There's nothing special about the 3.65ghz band other than a little
higher TX power and lower noise, so realistically, 3.65ghz 450 does a bit
worse NLOS than 2.4ghz 450 and a bit better than 5ghz 450... pretty much
just what you'd expect. If everything has clear LOS and good signals, 450
will probably outperform LTE (especially once 3.65 450M is out) NLOS
really isn't comparable though.


On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Josh Baird  wrote:

> 450 isn't Wimax.. so, it's really not the same.
>
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Matt  wrote:
>
>> How does it stack up to 450 to anyone who has done both?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
>> > We still have it, yes.  Transitioning to LTE.
>> > If you like-hated wimax, then you'll like-hate LTE even more.
>> >
>> > If you loved Wimax, then I don't think we can be friends.
>> >
>> >
>> > -- Original Message --
>> > From: "Philip Rankin" 
>> > To: "af" 
>> > Sent: 4/7/2017 1:56:26 PM
>> > Subject: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax
>> >
>> > Is anyone still operating 3.65 Wimax?
>> >
>> > Has any other technology/wireless protocol come along that can compete
>> with
>> > Wimax's superior nLos capability?  At any other bands?  I have no
>> interest
>> > in 900.
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance for any feedback!
>> >
>> > --
>> > Philip J. Rankin
>> > Wireless Telecommunications Services
>> > PO Box 24
>> > Pittsburg, KS  66762
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

[Adam Moffett]

I would really like to compare side by side, but I haven't.
I think someone at Cambium suggested that 450 would give you more 
throughput when it worked, but they believed LTE would work in more 
places.  I can't remember who that was.



-- Original Message --
From: "Josh Baird" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 4/7/2017 3:23:58 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax


450 isn't Wimax.. so, it's really not the same.

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Matt  
wrote:

How does it stack up to 450 to anyone who has done both?



On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Adam Moffett  
wrote:

> We still have it, yes.  Transitioning to LTE.
> If you like-hated wimax, then you'll like-hate LTE even more.
>
> If you loved Wimax, then I don't think we can be friends.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Philip Rankin" 
> To: "af" 
> Sent: 4/7/2017 1:56:26 PM
> Subject: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax
>
> Is anyone still operating 3.65 Wimax?
>
> Has any other technology/wireless protocol come along that can 
compete with
> Wimax's superior nLos capability?  At any other bands?  I have no 
interest

> in 900.
>
> Thanks in advance for any feedback!
>
> --
> Philip J. Rankin
> Wireless Telecommunications Services
> PO Box 24
> Pittsburg, KS  66762

[AFMUG] Inventory for sale

[Timothy Yent]

If interested in any of the items below, please let me know.  Make offer, no
reasonable offer will be refused.  Shipping to be paid by buyer.

 71 Used UBNT M2 Nanos with dish

150 Used 14dB 900Mhz Yagis

4 Used Last Mile Gear CTM-100 Slave units

27 Used and 22 New12dB 2.4 Ghz ePMP WBMFG Reflector Dish 

1 Allot NetEnforcer AC-1440   

1 Allot NetEnforcer Bypass 

You can view product specifications at

http://www.allot.com/products/platforms/netenforcer/

 

Tim

 

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

[Josh Baird]

450 isn't Wimax.. so, it's really not the same.

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Matt  wrote:

> How does it stack up to 450 to anyone who has done both?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
> > We still have it, yes.  Transitioning to LTE.
> > If you like-hated wimax, then you'll like-hate LTE even more.
> >
> > If you loved Wimax, then I don't think we can be friends.
> >
> >
> > -- Original Message --
> > From: "Philip Rankin" 
> > To: "af" 
> > Sent: 4/7/2017 1:56:26 PM
> > Subject: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax
> >
> > Is anyone still operating 3.65 Wimax?
> >
> > Has any other technology/wireless protocol come along that can compete
> with
> > Wimax's superior nLos capability?  At any other bands?  I have no
> interest
> > in 900.
> >
> > Thanks in advance for any feedback!
> >
> > --
> > Philip J. Rankin
> > Wireless Telecommunications Services
> > PO Box 24
> > Pittsburg, KS  66762
>

Re: [AFMUG] OT Good deal Fw: ENDS TODAY! TiVo Roamio OTA 72-hourflash sale for just $249.99.

[Seth Mattinen]

On 4/7/17 12:19, Chuck McCown wrote:

Radio.  Has good range too.  I have a home theater where the electronics
are and in another part of the house I have a gym.  I extend hdmi to the
gym with a nice screen on the wall.  I can control it from anywhere in
the gym.



The remote could be Wifi Direct.

~Seth

Re: [AFMUG] OT Good deal Fw: ENDS TODAY! TiVo Roamio OTA 72-hourflash sale for just $249.99.

[SmarterBroadband]

Sounds good, I have the gear behind the wall so need radio.

 

I will order one.

 

Thanks

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 12:20 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Good deal Fw: ENDS TODAY! TiVo Roamio OTA
72-hourflash sale for just $249.99.

 

Radio.  Has good range too.  I have a home theater where the electronics are
and in another part of the house I have a gym.  I extend hdmi to the gym
with a nice screen on the wall.  I can control it from anywhere in the gym.


 

From: SmarterBroadband 

Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 1:17 PM

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Good deal Fw: ENDS TODAY! TiVo Roamio OTA
72-hourflash sale for just $249.99.

 

That does look good.  I you have one can you tell me if the remote is IR or
radio (Bluetooth)?

Thanks

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 7:02 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] OT Good deal Fw: ENDS TODAY! TiVo Roamio OTA 72-hour flash
sale for just $249.99.

 

 

 

From: TiVo 

Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 7:09 AM

To: ch...@wbmfg.com 

Subject: ENDS TODAY! TiVo Roamio OTA 72-hour flash sale for just $249.99.

 

Antenna users, don't miss this amazing offer!








 
 

 






LAST CHANCE!


TIVO ROAMIO OTA 72-HOUR FLASH SALE

 





 
 

 






TiVo-renewed Roamio OTA 500GB DVR


$24999


While supplies last! 

 







 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 


 
 VIEW ONLINE

 






1 TiVo reserves the right to terminate this promotion at any time. Offer
ends April 7, 2017, or while supplies last. 


If you have any questions, please contact
 TiVo
Customer Support at 1-877-367-8486.


C2017 TiVo Corporation. All rights reserved. TiVo, the TiVo logo, the TiVo
silhouette logo, and TiVo Roamio are trademarks or registered trademarks of
TiVo Corporation or its subsidiaries worldwide. TiVo Corporation, 2160 Gold
St., San Jose, CA 95002. All other trademarks are the property of their
respective owners. Please review our

Privacy Policy. This message was sent to: ch...@wbmfg.com to help you get
the most out of your recent TiVo purchase. You may update your
 email
preferences at any time. To ensure receipt of our emails, please add email
@email.tivo.com to your address book. 

 

Re: [AFMUG] OT Good deal Fw: ENDS TODAY! TiVo Roamio OTA 72-hourflash sale for just $249.99.

[Chuck McCown]

TiVoRadio.  Has good range too.  I have a home theater where the electronics 
are and in another part of the house I have a gym.  I extend hdmi to the gym 
with a nice screen on the wall.  I can control it from anywhere in the gym.  

From: SmarterBroadband 
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 1:17 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Good deal Fw: ENDS TODAY! TiVo Roamio OTA 72-hourflash 
sale for just $249.99.

That does look good.  I you have one can you tell me if the remote is IR or 
radio (Bluetooth)?

Thanks

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 7:02 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] OT Good deal Fw: ENDS TODAY! TiVo Roamio OTA 72-hour flash 
sale for just $249.99.

 

 

 

From: TiVo 

Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 7:09 AM

To: ch...@wbmfg.com 

Subject: ENDS TODAY! TiVo Roamio OTA 72-hour flash sale for just $249.99.

 

Antenna users, don't miss this amazing offer!




 
   
 
   

   

LAST CHANCE!
 
TIVO ROAMIO OTA 72-HOUR FLASH SALE
 
 
   
 
   

   


 
   
 
   

   

TiVo-renewed Roamio OTA 500GB DVR
 
$24999
 
While supplies last! 
 
 
   
 
   
 

 


 
 
 
 
VIEW ONLINE
 
 
   
 
   
 

 

  1 TiVo reserves the right to terminate this 
promotion at any time. Offer ends April 7, 2017, or while supplies last. 
 
  If you have any questions, please contact TiVo 
Customer Support at 1-877-367-8486.
 
  ©2017 TiVo Corporation. All rights reserved. 
TiVo, the TiVo logo, the TiVo silhouette logo, and TiVo Roamio are trademarks 
or registered trademarks of TiVo Corporation or its subsidiaries worldwide. 
TiVo Corporation, 2160 Gold St., San Jose, CA 95002. All other trademarks are 
the property of their respective owners. Please review our Privacy Policy. This 
message was sent to: ch...@wbmfg.com to help you get the most out of your 
recent TiVo purchase. You may update your email preferences at any time. To 
ensure receipt of our emails, please add email @email.tivo.com to your address 
book. 
 
   
 
   
 

 

Re: [AFMUG] OT Good deal Fw: ENDS TODAY! TiVo Roamio OTA 72-hour flash sale for just $249.99.

[SmarterBroadband]

That does look good.  I you have one can you tell me if the remote is IR or
radio (Bluetooth)?

Thanks

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 7:02 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] OT Good deal Fw: ENDS TODAY! TiVo Roamio OTA 72-hour flash
sale for just $249.99.

 

 

 

From: TiVo 

Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 7:09 AM

To: ch...@wbmfg.com   

Subject: ENDS TODAY! TiVo Roamio OTA 72-hour flash sale for just $249.99.

 

Antenna users, don't miss this amazing offer!

 

 






 
 

 






LAST CHANCE!


TIVO ROAMIO OTA 72-HOUR FLASH SALE

 





 
 

 






TiVo-renewed Roamio OTA 500GB DVR


$24999


While supplies last! 

 







 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 


 
 VIEW ONLINE

 






1 TiVo reserves the right to terminate this promotion at any time. Offer
ends April 7, 2017, or while supplies last. 


If you have any questions, please contact
 TiVo
Customer Support at 1-877-367-8486.


C2017 TiVo Corporation. All rights reserved. TiVo, the TiVo logo, the TiVo
silhouette logo, and TiVo Roamio are trademarks or registered trademarks of
TiVo Corporation or its subsidiaries worldwide. TiVo Corporation, 2160 Gold
St., San Jose, CA 95002. All other trademarks are the property of their
respective owners. Please review our

Privacy Policy. This message was sent to: ch...@wbmfg.com
  to help you get the most out of your recent TiVo
purchase. You may update your
 email
preferences at any time. To ensure receipt of our emails, please add email
@email.tivo.com to your address book. 

 

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

[Matt]

How does it stack up to 450 to anyone who has done both?



On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
> We still have it, yes.  Transitioning to LTE.
> If you like-hated wimax, then you'll like-hate LTE even more.
>
> If you loved Wimax, then I don't think we can be friends.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Philip Rankin" 
> To: "af" 
> Sent: 4/7/2017 1:56:26 PM
> Subject: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax
>
> Is anyone still operating 3.65 Wimax?
>
> Has any other technology/wireless protocol come along that can compete with
> Wimax's superior nLos capability?  At any other bands?  I have no interest
> in 900.
>
> Thanks in advance for any feedback!
>
> --
> Philip J. Rankin
> Wireless Telecommunications Services
> PO Box 24
> Pittsburg, KS  66762

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

[SmarterBroadband]

Like you we use Telrad WiMAX.  It has been good for us.  We will also 
transition to LTE soon.

 

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 11:14 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

 

We still have it, yes.  Transitioning to LTE.

If you like-hated wimax, then you'll like-hate LTE even more.

 

If you loved Wimax, then I don't think we can be friends.

 

 

-- Original Message --

From: "Philip Rankin"  >

To: "af"  >

Sent: 4/7/2017 1:56:26 PM

Subject: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

 

Is anyone still operating 3.65 Wimax?

 

Has any other technology/wireless protocol come along that can compete with 
Wimax's superior nLos capability?  At any other bands?  I have no interest in 
900.

 

Thanks in advance for any feedback!


 

-- 

Philip J. Rankin

Wireless Telecommunications Services
PO Box 24
Pittsburg, KS  66762

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

[Adam Moffett]

At a previous employer it was Motorola CAP320.  Current employer has a 
blend of Alvarion and Telrad BS's.


Wimax likes:
Works with the crummy signal you get through some trees.

Wimax hates:
Too numerous to list.  I wrote one vendor several pages of 
complaints.  The equipment was always buggy.  Features important to me 
were never there.  Performance was never that great either.





-- Original Message --
From: "Philip Rankin" 
To: "af" 
Sent: 4/7/2017 2:21:01 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax


Hi Adam,

Curious about your issues with Wimax?  What did you use for base 
stations?


On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Adam Moffett  
wrote:

We still have it, yes.  Transitioning to LTE.
If you like-hated wimax, then you'll like-hate LTE even more.

If you loved Wimax, then I don't think we can be friends.


-- Original Message --
From: "Philip Rankin" 
To: "af" 
Sent: 4/7/2017 1:56:26 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax


Is anyone still operating 3.65 Wimax?

Has any other technology/wireless protocol come along that can 
compete with Wimax's superior nLos capability?  At any other bands?  
I have no interest in 900.


Thanks in advance for any feedback!

--
Philip J. Rankin
Wireless Telecommunications Services
PO Box 24
Pittsburg, KS  66762




--
Philip J. Rankin
Wireless Telecommunications Services
PO Box 24
Pittsburg, KS  66762

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

[Jason McKemie]

Convoluted configuration, can be buggy, very sensitive to interference, etc.

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Philip Rankin  wrote:

> Hi Adam,
>
> Curious about your issues with Wimax?  What did you use for base stations?
>
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
>
>> We still have it, yes.  Transitioning to LTE.
>> If you like-hated wimax, then you'll like-hate LTE even more.
>>
>> If you loved Wimax, then I don't think we can be friends.
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "Philip Rankin" 
>> To: "af" 
>> Sent: 4/7/2017 1:56:26 PM
>> Subject: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax
>>
>> Is anyone still operating 3.65 Wimax?
>>
>> Has any other technology/wireless protocol come along that can compete
>> with Wimax's superior nLos capability?  At any other bands?  I have no
>> interest in 900.
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any feedback!
>>
>> --
>> Philip J. Rankin
>> Wireless Telecommunications Services
>> PO Box 24
>> Pittsburg, KS  66762
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Philip J. Rankin
> Wireless Telecommunications Services
> PO Box 24
> Pittsburg, KS  66762
>

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

[Philip Rankin]

BTW,

Some friends come, and
Some friends Go
Some friends peter out you know!
But we'll be friends through thick and thin!
Peter out or peter in!

I used to say that to my old girl friends all the time!


On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> We still have it, yes.  Transitioning to LTE.
> If you like-hated wimax, then you'll like-hate LTE even more.
>
> If you loved Wimax, then I don't think we can be friends.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Philip Rankin" 
> To: "af" 
> Sent: 4/7/2017 1:56:26 PM
> Subject: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax
>
> Is anyone still operating 3.65 Wimax?
>
> Has any other technology/wireless protocol come along that can compete
> with Wimax's superior nLos capability?  At any other bands?  I have no
> interest in 900.
>
> Thanks in advance for any feedback!
>
> --
> Philip J. Rankin
> Wireless Telecommunications Services
> PO Box 24
> Pittsburg, KS  66762
>
>


-- 
Philip J. Rankin
Wireless Telecommunications Services
PO Box 24
Pittsburg, KS  66762

Re: [AFMUG] Fiber replacing cable co

[Matt Corcoran]

Hi Jon,

Take a look at   www.golightspeed.comserving Lansing and Grand Rapids. 
Fiber to the home.


Matt Corcoran
Stratos Networks
Network Engineer


On 4/7/17, 1:54 PM, "Af on behalf of Jon Langeler"  wrote:

Is anyone competing against Charter or Comcast? What's the pricing/speed 
model?

Jon Langeler
Michwave Technologies, Inc.

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

[Philip Rankin]

Hi Adam,

Curious about your issues with Wimax?  What did you use for base stations?

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> We still have it, yes.  Transitioning to LTE.
> If you like-hated wimax, then you'll like-hate LTE even more.
>
> If you loved Wimax, then I don't think we can be friends.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Philip Rankin" 
> To: "af" 
> Sent: 4/7/2017 1:56:26 PM
> Subject: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax
>
> Is anyone still operating 3.65 Wimax?
>
> Has any other technology/wireless protocol come along that can compete
> with Wimax's superior nLos capability?  At any other bands?  I have no
> interest in 900.
>
> Thanks in advance for any feedback!
>
> --
> Philip J. Rankin
> Wireless Telecommunications Services
> PO Box 24
> Pittsburg, KS  66762
>
>


-- 
Philip J. Rankin
Wireless Telecommunications Services
PO Box 24
Pittsburg, KS  66762

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

[Adam Moffett]

We still have it, yes.  Transitioning to LTE.
If you like-hated wimax, then you'll like-hate LTE even more.

If you loved Wimax, then I don't think we can be friends.


-- Original Message --
From: "Philip Rankin" 
To: "af" 
Sent: 4/7/2017 1:56:26 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax


Is anyone still operating 3.65 Wimax?

Has any other technology/wireless protocol come along that can compete 
with Wimax's superior nLos capability?  At any other bands?  I have no 
interest in 900.


Thanks in advance for any feedback!

--
Philip J. Rankin
Wireless Telecommunications Services
PO Box 24
Pittsburg, KS  66762

Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

[Mathew Howard]

I think pretty much everyone is switching over to LTE in 3.65ghz these days
(aside from Canopy stuff, but that doesn't really compare for nLOS
capabilities)... Baicells and Telrad are probably the most common at this
point.

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Philip Rankin 
wrote:

> Is anyone still operating 3.65 Wimax?
>
> Has any other technology/wireless protocol come along that can compete
> with Wimax's superior nLos capability?  At any other bands?  I have no
> interest in 900.
>
> Thanks in advance for any feedback!
>
> --
> Philip J. Rankin
> Wireless Telecommunications Services
> PO Box 24
> Pittsburg, KS  66762
>

[AFMUG] 3.65 Wimax

[Philip Rankin]

Is anyone still operating 3.65 Wimax?

Has any other technology/wireless protocol come along that can compete with
Wimax's superior nLos capability?  At any other bands?  I have no interest
in 900.

Thanks in advance for any feedback!

-- 
Philip J. Rankin
Wireless Telecommunications Services
PO Box 24
Pittsburg, KS  66762

[AFMUG] Fiber replacing cable co

[Jon Langeler]

Is anyone competing against Charter or Comcast? What's the pricing/speed model?

Jon Langeler
Michwave Technologies, Inc.

Re: [AFMUG] The better fiber NID box

[Jason McKemie]

What's the temp rating on those Ubiquiti ONTs?  Also, will they ever
actually be available for regular purchase?

I've been using RB260GS units, but this backorder situation is getting
ridiculous. The lack of any sort of management or diagnostic capabilities
in the FTC is a non-starter for me.  I may just switch to using the RB2011
if Ignitenet doesn't get their updated hardware out soon.

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Chris Fabien  wrote:

> From Milennium.
>
> We have been putting FTC11 media converters in these. looking at mouting
> the UBNT ONT in them instead for this year. We mount it to the back on an
> angle, store a couple loops of slack drop cable around the perimieter of
> the box. We terminate the fiber into an LC connector directly so do not use
> a splice tray. There would probably be room for a small splice tray if you
> wanted.
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 8:43 PM, Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>
>> Where are you getting those for $15? Last place I checked wanted $50-$60.
>> I'm using the Corning Optiway nid enclosure. There isn't as good of a place
>> to attach a router board as in the one you specified, but it does allow for
>> a standard snap-in ONT. Ignitenet claims that they are considering a
>> mounting plate for their revised media converter that will snap in to the
>> standard size NID closure. That would be nice.
>>
>> On Thursday, April 6, 2017, Chris Fabien  wrote:
>>
>>> We use a multilink NID that's about 6 times the size of that for $15.
>>> RNI-3620 I think is the model. It does not have the splice tray or adapter
>>> holder but has plenty of room to add one if you wanted.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Adam Moffett 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Rather than hijack Paul McCall's thread, this is my version of the same
 quest.



 http://www.fiberinstrumentsales.com/fis-nid-termination-box-
 lc-or-sc-accepts-8-fibers-for-dx-lc.html
 I like the above FIS brand NID box.  I like that it has built in slack
 storage and flip out splice tray.  I like the option of using snap-in
 mating sleeves.  I like that the door comes off by lifting upwards...then I
 can use both elbows while I'm in the box.  I like that the entry points are
 standard conduit knockout sizes.  I like that it has a retaining clamp for
 a drop cable.  I like that it's weather proof.

 What would make me happier:
 (1) Forget the lock.  Close it with a captive thumb screw.
 (2) A padlock hasp so I *could* lock it.
 (3) Make it larger.  I'd want space for a small switch or ONT, and
 I'd want to be able to drill out the knockouts one size larger (you can't
 now due to depth).
 (4) The mounting screw holes in the corners require a long driver
 bit, they're just barely too small for my long bit holder.  another
 1/16" would have saved me a trip to the hardware store.
 (5) Cheap.

 Someone else would want room for an AC outlet and a UPS, but not me.

 Does my perfect box already exist?  Could McCown build my perfect box
 for less than $20,000?

>>>
>>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] CISCO VLAN question

[Josh Luthman]

VLAN is 1998 - wow!


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Dave  wrote:

> Yes..
>  I come from the 1990 era of Cisco LOL
>
>
>
> On 04/07/2017 10:29 AM, Cassidy B. Larson wrote:
>
> switchport trunk native vlan sounds like what you’re after?
> It’ll pass an untagged vlan across a trunk port.
>
>
> On Apr 7, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Dave   
> wrote:
>
> Ok,
> So I want to manage my radio link and provide public access over that link.
> How do I configure my Cisco for switchport trunk to allow the customer to 
> connect at the other end with a sonicwall for his public ip?
> So the topology of this is
> Vlan 1000 is a managed vlan
> Vlan 2400 is the public access vlan
> Cisco port is mode trunk dot1q to allow both vlans but since the customer 
> dont have a vlan to configure on his sonic wall I would need my radios to 
> allow
> switchport access of 2400
>
> Is there a way to tell the cisco to allow switchport access for vlan2400 on 
> the same trunked port?
>
> Any ideas will be helpful
>
> Thanks
> Dave
>
> --
> 
>
>
> --
>

Re: [AFMUG] The better fiber NID box

[Chris Fabien]

>From Milennium.

We have been putting FTC11 media converters in these. looking at mouting
the UBNT ONT in them instead for this year. We mount it to the back on an
angle, store a couple loops of slack drop cable around the perimieter of
the box. We terminate the fiber into an LC connector directly so do not use
a splice tray. There would probably be room for a small splice tray if you
wanted.

Chris


On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 8:43 PM, Jason McKemie <
j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

> Where are you getting those for $15? Last place I checked wanted $50-$60.
> I'm using the Corning Optiway nid enclosure. There isn't as good of a place
> to attach a router board as in the one you specified, but it does allow for
> a standard snap-in ONT. Ignitenet claims that they are considering a
> mounting plate for their revised media converter that will snap in to the
> standard size NID closure. That would be nice.
>
> On Thursday, April 6, 2017, Chris Fabien  wrote:
>
>> We use a multilink NID that's about 6 times the size of that for $15.
>> RNI-3620 I think is the model. It does not have the splice tray or adapter
>> holder but has plenty of room to add one if you wanted.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
>>
>>> Rather than hijack Paul McCall's thread, this is my version of the same
>>> quest.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.fiberinstrumentsales.com/fis-nid-termination-box-
>>> lc-or-sc-accepts-8-fibers-for-dx-lc.html
>>> I like the above FIS brand NID box.  I like that it has built in slack
>>> storage and flip out splice tray.  I like the option of using snap-in
>>> mating sleeves.  I like that the door comes off by lifting upwards...then I
>>> can use both elbows while I'm in the box.  I like that the entry points are
>>> standard conduit knockout sizes.  I like that it has a retaining clamp for
>>> a drop cable.  I like that it's weather proof.
>>>
>>> What would make me happier:
>>> (1) Forget the lock.  Close it with a captive thumb screw.
>>> (2) A padlock hasp so I *could* lock it.
>>> (3) Make it larger.  I'd want space for a small switch or ONT, and
>>> I'd want to be able to drill out the knockouts one size larger (you can't
>>> now due to depth).
>>> (4) The mounting screw holes in the corners require a long driver
>>> bit, they're just barely too small for my long bit holder.  another
>>> 1/16" would have saved me a trip to the hardware store.
>>> (5) Cheap.
>>>
>>> Someone else would want room for an AC outlet and a UPS, but not me.
>>>
>>> Does my perfect box already exist?  Could McCown build my perfect box
>>> for less than $20,000?
>>>
>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] CISCO VLAN question

[Dave]

Yes..
 I come from the 1990 era of Cisco LOL



On 04/07/2017 10:29 AM, Cassidy B. Larson wrote:

switchport trunk native vlan sounds like what you’re after?
It’ll pass an untagged vlan across a trunk port.


On Apr 7, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Dave  wrote:

Ok,
So I want to manage my radio link and provide public access over that link.
How do I configure my Cisco for switchport trunk to allow the customer to 
connect at the other end with a sonicwall for his public ip?
So the topology of this is
Vlan 1000 is a managed vlan
Vlan 2400 is the public access vlan
Cisco port is mode trunk dot1q to allow both vlans but since the customer dont 
have a vlan to configure on his sonic wall I would need my radios to allow
switchport access of 2400

Is there a way to tell the cisco to allow switchport access for vlan2400 on the 
same trunked port?

Any ideas will be helpful

Thanks
Dave

--



--

Re: [AFMUG] CISCO VLAN question

[Cassidy B. Larson]

switchport trunk native vlan sounds like what you’re after?
It’ll pass an untagged vlan across a trunk port.

> On Apr 7, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Dave  wrote:
> 
> Ok,
> So I want to manage my radio link and provide public access over that link.
> How do I configure my Cisco for switchport trunk to allow the customer to 
> connect at the other end with a sonicwall for his public ip?
> So the topology of this is
> Vlan 1000 is a managed vlan
> Vlan 2400 is the public access vlan
> Cisco port is mode trunk dot1q to allow both vlans but since the customer 
> dont have a vlan to configure on his sonic wall I would need my radios to 
> allow
> switchport access of 2400
> 
> Is there a way to tell the cisco to allow switchport access for vlan2400 on 
> the same trunked port?
> 
> Any ideas will be helpful
> 
> Thanks
> Dave
> 
> --
> 

[AFMUG] CISCO VLAN question

[Dave]

Ok,
So I want to manage my radio link and provide public access over that link.
How do I configure my Cisco for switchport trunk to allow the customer 
to connect at the other end with a sonicwall for his public ip?

So the topology of this is
Vlan 1000 is a managed vlan
Vlan 2400 is the public access vlan
Cisco port is mode trunk dot1q to allow both vlans but since the 
customer dont have a vlan to configure on his sonic wall I would need my 
radios to allow

switchport access of 2400

Is there a way to tell the cisco to allow switchport access for vlan2400 
on the same trunked port?


Any ideas will be helpful

Thanks
Dave

--

[AFMUG] OT Good deal Fw: ENDS TODAY! TiVo Roamio OTA 72-hour flash sale for just $249.99.

[Chuck McCown]

TiVo

From: TiVo 
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 7:09 AM
To: ch...@wbmfg.com 
Subject: ENDS TODAY! TiVo Roamio OTA 72-hour flash sale for just $249.99.

Antenna users, don't miss this amazing offer!
   
   
 
   
LAST CHANCE! 
TIVO ROAMIO OTA 72-HOUR FLASH SALE 
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
TiVo-renewed Roamio OTA 500GB DVR 
$24999 
While supplies last!  
 
   
 
   
 

VIEW ONLINE 
 
   
 
   
 
  1 TiVo reserves the right to terminate this 
promotion at any time. Offer ends April 7, 2017, or while supplies last.  
  If you have any questions, please contact TiVo 
Customer Support at 1-877-367-8486. 
  ©2017 TiVo Corporation. All rights reserved. 
TiVo, the TiVo logo, the TiVo silhouette logo, and TiVo Roamio are trademarks 
or registered trademarks of TiVo Corporation or its subsidiaries worldwide. 
TiVo Corporation, 2160 Gold St., San Jose, CA 95002. All other trademarks are 
the property of their respective owners. Please review our Privacy Policy. This 
message was sent to: ch...@wbmfg.com to help you get the most out of your 
recent TiVo purchase. You may update your email preferences at any time. To 
ensure receipt of our emails, please add email @email.tivo.com to your address 
book.  

   
 
   
 

Re: [AFMUG] The better fiber NID box

[Adam Moffett]

So do you epoxy a splice tray into the box?
Do you add something to secure the ONT? Velcro strap maybe?


http://www.ebay.com/itm/9-x9-x3-OUTDOOR-CABLETEK-ENCLOSURE-PLASTIC-GRAY-CASE-UTILITY-CABLE-BOX-CTE-S-/281577889363?hash=item418f599e53:g:c-sAAOSwxYxUwHHf

http://www.primuscable.com/store/p/4657-Fiber-Splice-Tray-12-Single-Fusion-Splices-Plastic-0-75-x6-x2-75.aspx

And there is enough room for UBNT ONT, waiting on our test box parts 
to show up.



Erich Kaiser
North Central Tower
er...@northcentraltower.com 
Office: 630-621-4804
Cell: 630-777-9291


On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Jason McKemie 
> wrote:


Where are you getting those for $15? Last place I checked wanted
$50-$60. I'm using the Corning Optiway nid enclosure. There isn't
as good of a place to attach a router board as in the one you
specified, but it does allow for a standard snap-in ONT. Ignitenet
claims that they are considering a mounting plate for their
revised media converter that will snap in to the standard size NID
closure. That would be nice.

On Thursday, April 6, 2017, Chris Fabien > wrote:

We use a multilink NID that's about 6 times the size of that
for $15. RNI-3620 I think is the model. It does not have the
splice tray or adapter holder but has plenty of room to add
one if you wanted.


On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Adam Moffett
 wrote:

Rather than hijack Paul McCall's thread, this is my
version of the same quest.




http://www.fiberinstrumentsales.com/fis-nid-termination-box-lc-or-sc-accepts-8-fibers-for-dx-lc.html


I like the above FIS brand NID box.  I like that it has
built in slack storage and flip out splice tray.  I like
the option of using snap-in mating sleeves.  I like that
the door comes off by lifting upwards...then I can use
both elbows while I'm in the box. I like that the entry
points are standard conduit knockout sizes.  I like that
it has a retaining clamp for a drop cable.  I like that
it's weather proof.

What would make me happier:
(1) Forget the lock.  Close it with a captive thumb screw.
(2) A padlock hasp so I *could* lock it.
(3) Make it larger.  I'd want space for a small switch
or ONT, and I'd want to be able to drill out the knockouts
one size larger (you can't now due to depth).
(4) The mounting screw holes in the corners require a
long driver bit, they're just barely too small for my long
bit holder.  another 1/16" would have saved me a trip
to the hardware store.
(5) Cheap.

Someone else would want room for an AC outlet and a UPS,
but not me.

Does my perfect box already exist?  Could McCown build my
perfect box for less than $20,000?