Re: [WISPA] 5.8 GHz PtP - weaker RSLs
Is there anyone who is using anything other than Trango who sees this same issue? Scriv Mark Koskenmaki wrote: Im on the other end of the country - Oregon... I saw no changes in my 5 ghz stuff. Solar activity would have an impact here too, right? how long does the influence last? North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061 personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net Fast Internet, NO WIRES! - - Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 10:28 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] 5.8 GHz PtP - weaker RSLs On 2 Aug 2005 at 12:56, Brian Webster wrote: Since different people saw the same problem in multiple locations I would suspect a propagation problem, probably as a result of solar activity. While possible, there's one thing that just makes that sound really weird. We're using Trango gear as well, and (as Scriv mentioned) saw some similar problems last night... One of our Trango APs has two client SUs associated. Both links are about nine miles, but the endpoints are only about three miles apart, on the same state highway. Think of it as a V shape, where the AP is at the bottom of the V. And the V is actually pointing west-to-east. But whatever. One of those links went completely bananas, lost about 10dB of signal, dropped connection all over the place. The other didn't skip a beat. I have another, similar, link that did the same thing last night. One AP, three SUs. One went bonkers, the other two were things of beauty and perfection. Again, the endpoints are only a couple miles apart. [newbie mode ON!] Is solar flare activity really sufficiently random that this is plausible? With clients on the same frequency, and so relatively close together, I'd expect any really broad-scale interference to knock them all off at the same time, instead of just doing so randomly. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Re: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest
I agree. Continental is a tennant and has exclusive use of the space. Don't see that as different that any other MTU. And they are not wanting to receive the same signal that MASSPORT is sending out, they want their own, if I read it right. Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net -- Original Message --- From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:52:34 -0400 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest Some thoughts.. I agree that we should support Continental for the following reasons: The use of the wireless system used by Continental is constructed in space used exclusively by Continental and/or its agents, clients, employees and cannot be used by any others. As such it is not considered common in term. The system uses unlicensed spectrum which has, as we all know, the usual You can't interfere with me...I can't interfere with you rules of Part 15. And they (Massport) cannot complain about interference to their operations without proving same is occuring. And if Continental is interfering with Massport's system, they should be contacting the Commission's Enforcement Bureau. Obviously that has not occured (to the best of our knowledge). The Commission already has type accepted the equipment in use and, as such, Massport cannot complain about health risks. The requirement to use the master antenna system would result in Continental's signal being broadcast all over the airport rather than the specific area required by Continental. This leads to spectral waste by distributing Continental's signal all over Massport's facilities. In addition, there is now an increased chance of experiencing interference to Continental's operations as well as increased security risk as the signal is now more accessible over a larger area. No entity should have a right to restrict the use of RF spectrum that is presently governed by the Federal Communications Commission. While the pettition does not pertain to this matter directly, Continental's lease agreement with Massport reaks or attempts to coordinate frequency use. An effort should be made to have the Commission admonish Massport for its attempts to perform a function for which they are not authorized under the Commission's rules. And finally...I dislike greedy landlords...The only reason they (Massport) are even making an issue is because there is more money at stake. And this is no different than paying a license fee or frequency coordination fee for which the Federal Communications Commission says there should be none. Maybe Continental could become the official WISPA air carrier after we reply... :-D I'm sure I can come up with more but these are the main thoughts that come to mind. -B- Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Thanks Harold! Guys, it seems to me that we should jump in bed with Continental on this issue. This same rule would certainly apply to mesh type systems or aps which have, thus far, not been covered under OTARD. Thoughts? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Harold Feld [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Open Spectrum [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Unlicensed Advocates [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 12:42 PM Subject: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest Released: 07/29/2005. OET SEEKS COMMENT ON PETITION FROM CONTINENTAL AIRLINES FOR DECLARATORY RULING REGARDING WHETHER CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON ANTENNA INSTALLATION ARE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE COMMISSION'S OVER-THE-AIR RECEPTION DEVICES (OTARD) RULES. (DA No. 05-2213). (Dkt No 05-247). Comments Due: 08/29/2005. Reply Comments Due: 09/13/2005. OET. Contact: Gary Thayer at (202) 418-2290 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2213A1.txt ___ Unlicensed_advocates mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kumr.lns.com/mailman/listinfo/unlicensed_advocates -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group
[WISPA] Re: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest
Yes. You should be concerned about landlords cutting exclusive deals with telcos and cable cos to prohibit competing wireless networks. I'm not talking about roof top access; I'm talking about asserting control over internal networks so that you can't reach business customers. The OTARD rules started because cable companies cut exclusive deals with landlords to keep out DBS receivers. Harold At 06:41 PM 8/2/2005, Marlon K. Schafer \(509\) 982-2181 wrote: Thanks Harold! Guys, it seems to me that we should jump in bed with Continental on this issue. This same rule would certainly apply to mesh type systems or aps which have, thus far, not been covered under OTARD. Thoughts? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Harold Feld [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Open Spectrum [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Unlicensed Advocates [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 12:42 PM Subject: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest Released: 07/29/2005. OET SEEKS COMMENT ON PETITION FROM CONTINENTAL AIRLINES FOR DECLARATORY RULING REGARDING WHETHER CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON ANTENNA INSTALLATION ARE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE COMMISSION'S OVER-THE-AIR RECEPTION DEVICES (OTARD) RULES. (DA No. 05-2213). (Dkt No 05-247). Comments Due: 08/29/2005. Reply Comments Due: 09/13/2005. OET. Contact: Gary Thayer at (202) 418-2290 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2213A1.txt ___ Unlicensed_advocates mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kumr.lns.com/mailman/listinfo/unlicensed_advocates -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re[2]: [WISPA] 5.8 GHz PtP - weaker RSLs
Hello John, Redline. Barry Wednesday, August 3, 2005, 8:49:52 AM, you wrote: JS Is there anyone who is using anything other than Trango who sees this JS same issue? JS Scriv JS Mark Koskenmaki wrote: Im on the other end of the country - Oregon... I saw no changes in my 5 ghz stuff. Solar activity would have an impact here too, right? how long does the influence last? North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061 personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net Fast Internet, NO WIRES! - - Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 10:28 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] 5.8 GHz PtP - weaker RSLs On 2 Aug 2005 at 12:56, Brian Webster wrote: Since different people saw the same problem in multiple locations I would suspect a propagation problem, probably as a result of solar activity. While possible, there's one thing that just makes that sound really weird. We're using Trango gear as well, and (as Scriv mentioned) saw some similar problems last night... One of our Trango APs has two client SUs associated. Both links are about nine miles, but the endpoints are only about three miles apart, on the same state highway. Think of it as a V shape, where the AP is at the bottom of the V. And the V is actually pointing west-to-east. But whatever. One of those links went completely bananas, lost about 10dB of signal, dropped connection all over the place. The other didn't skip a beat. I have another, similar, link that did the same thing last night. One AP, three SUs. One went bonkers, the other two were things of beauty and perfection. Again, the endpoints are only a couple miles apart. [newbie mode ON!] Is solar flare activity really sufficiently random that this is plausible? With clients on the same frequency, and so relatively close together, I'd expect any really broad-scale interference to knock them all off at the same time, instead of just doing so randomly. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Best regards, Barrymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Re: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest
That looks great! Care to head up the submission of this to the FCC? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 6:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest Some thoughts.. I agree that we should support Continental for the following reasons: The use of the wireless system used by Continental is constructed in space used exclusively by Continental and/or its agents, clients, employees and cannot be used by any others. As such it is not considered common in term. The system uses unlicensed spectrum which has, as we all know, the usual You can't interfere with me...I can't interfere with you rules of Part 15. And they (Massport) cannot complain about interference to their operations without proving same is occuring. And if Continental is interfering with Massport's system, they should be contacting the Commission's Enforcement Bureau. Obviously that has not occured (to the best of our knowledge). The Commission already has type accepted the equipment in use and, as such, Massport cannot complain about health risks. The requirement to use the master antenna system would result in Continental's signal being broadcast all over the airport rather than the specific area required by Continental. This leads to spectral waste by distributing Continental's signal all over Massport's facilities. In addition, there is now an increased chance of experiencing interference to Continental's operations as well as increased security risk as the signal is now more accessible over a larger area. No entity should have a right to restrict the use of RF spectrum that is presently governed by the Federal Communications Commission. While the pettition does not pertain to this matter directly, Continental's lease agreement with Massport reaks or attempts to coordinate frequency use. An effort should be made to have the Commission admonish Massport for its attempts to perform a function for which they are not authorized under the Commission's rules. And finally...I dislike greedy landlords...The only reason they (Massport) are even making an issue is because there is more money at stake. And this is no different than paying a license fee or frequency coordination fee for which the Federal Communications Commission says there should be none. Maybe Continental could become the official WISPA air carrier after we reply... :-D I'm sure I can come up with more but these are the main thoughts that come to mind. -B- Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Thanks Harold! Guys, it seems to me that we should jump in bed with Continental on this issue. This same rule would certainly apply to mesh type systems or aps which have, thus far, not been covered under OTARD. Thoughts? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Harold Feld [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Open Spectrum [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Unlicensed Advocates [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 12:42 PM Subject: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest Released: 07/29/2005. OET SEEKS COMMENT ON PETITION FROM CONTINENTAL AIRLINES FOR DECLARATORY RULING REGARDING WHETHER CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON ANTENNA INSTALLATION ARE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE COMMISSION'S OVER-THE-AIR RECEPTION DEVICES (OTARD) RULES. (DA No. 05-2213). (Dkt No 05-247). Comments Due: 08/29/2005. Reply Comments Due: 09/13/2005. OET. Contact: Gary Thayer at (202) 418-2290 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2213A1.txt ___ Unlicensed_advocates mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kumr.lns.com/mailman/listinfo/unlicensed_advocates -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives:
Re: [WISPA] FCC Ruling
I don't think the FCC has much choice in the matter. The Supreme Court has ruled that they can't force the unbundled elements issue. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Jory Privett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 12:18 PM Subject: [WISPA] FCC Ruling I know this is not exactly WISP business but since many of us are multipurpose ISPs on this list I thought this would be of importance. Beside, if the Bells get their way here who's to say that they won't go after the airwaves so that their cell divisions have the only access. Please check out this link and make a comment to the FCC on what think. http://www.ii4a.org/fcc.htm Also this group has created some formal letters and made them available for anyone to use. They can be found at http://www.ii4a.org/letters/ Please pick one, modify it with your name and letterhead and send it to anyone that might have an interest. This could be the FCC, your congressman, your state representative, or even the local media in your area. Please forward this to your customers. The more people we can get active in this fight the better chance we have in making our voice heard. Jory Privett WCCS -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fwd: FCC expected to officially propose DSL deregulationonThursday
Guys, remember this phrase. Use it whenever you are talking to your representatives, peers, regulators etc. Facilities based competition. It's the ONLY way to prevent junk like this. You've got to own your tools kids. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 3:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fwd: FCC expected to officially propose DSL deregulationonThursday Mac Dearman wrote: one has really sold a lot of it :-) Does this ruling man that they will shut him down? evil evil grin I kinda of had similar thoughts about the consequences my competition would suffer that I wouldn't. Because I don't provide dsl and they do. But getting away from the selfish side of me, I hate to see the independent ISP, no matter how big or small get the rug pulled out from under them and seeing them all go the wayside. It's just one more piece of our industry widdled away on us and that much closer before they find away to do us pure wisp in. I hope that congress does a rewrite of the telecommunications act and for a change, takes the independent network operator seriously enough to make room for us to compete when it's all said and done. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fwd: FCC expected to officially propose DSLderegulationonThursday
If anyone recalls the argument I had with Charles Wu...about how I would NEVER surrender ownership of every part of my own network, from customer to carrier hotel if there was any way of keeping it... This kind of dependency upon regulatory whims, or the goodwill of public agencies is NOT healthy to a secure future. I'm thinking I shouild contact my DSL selling competition and say Before it's too late, lets get you signed up to resell my services or contract with me to provide transport.Owning the infrastructure and last mile are absolutely invaluable. North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061 personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net Fast Internet, NO WIRES! - - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 3:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fwd: FCC expected to officially propose DSLderegulationonThursday Guys, remember this phrase. Use it whenever you are talking to your representatives, peers, regulators etc. Facilities based competition. It's the ONLY way to prevent junk like this. You've got to own your tools kids. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 3:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fwd: FCC expected to officially propose DSL deregulationonThursday Mac Dearman wrote: one has really sold a lot of it :-) Does this ruling man that they will shut him down? evil evil grin I kinda of had similar thoughts about the consequences my competition would suffer that I wouldn't. Because I don't provide dsl and they do. But getting away from the selfish side of me, I hate to see the independent ISP, no matter how big or small get the rug pulled out from under them and seeing them all go the wayside. It's just one more piece of our industry widdled away on us and that much closer before they find away to do us pure wisp in. I hope that congress does a rewrite of the telecommunications act and for a change, takes the independent network operator seriously enough to make room for us to compete when it's all said and done. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
