Re: [WISPA] Big trouble with my first AP...
Jason wrote: I have a difficult question for the list. I was testing my 1st routerboard/mikrotik ap this evening with terrible results. Let me give you the rundown of what I have and what has happened. [ snip: a fairly typical kinda setup ] Forgive me for going through all the really obvious newbie stuff, but the sooner we can rule it out, the sooner we can get to the juicy stuff. :) Are the three APs on the same channel, or three different channels? And are they using the same SSID or different ones? Also, did you make sure your rootenna was correctly polarized to point to the AP? One other thing which might be the cause is that while I was setting up the mikrotik/routerboard I activated the 3 cm9 radios not realizing that they were set for the 5 Ghz band. They were probably like that for an hour until I got to that part of the setup. Perhaps something is wrong now or are the cm9's forgiving? That shouldn't be a problem. The CM9 will change over to the new frequency pretty much immediately, and I can't imagine how running the AP on the wrong channel would have damaged the coax run or the antenna. (Not saying it's impossible, just very unlikely IMO.) 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/
Re: [WISPA] Big trouble with my first AP...
David, I was afraid I sounded like a newbie... Anyway, I've had the radios on different channels and the same ones; would this effect the signal strength or the s/n ratio? Signal strength is where the problem is. Also I wasn't worried that the coax or antennas were damaged, the radio itself was my worry . I tried both polarities on the antenna I was testing with. David E. Smith wrote: Jason wrote: I have a difficult question for the list. I was testing my 1st routerboard/mikrotik ap this evening with terrible results. Let me give you the rundown of what I have and what has happened. [ snip: a fairly typical kinda setup ] Forgive me for going through all the really obvious newbie stuff, but the sooner we can rule it out, the sooner we can get to the juicy stuff. :) Are the three APs on the same channel, or three different channels? And are they using the same SSID or different ones? Also, did you make sure your rootenna was correctly polarized to point to the AP? One other thing which might be the cause is that while I was setting up the mikrotik/routerboard I activated the 3 cm9 radios not realizing that they were set for the 5 Ghz band. They were probably like that for an hour until I got to that part of the setup. Perhaps something is wrong now or are the cm9's forgiving? That shouldn't be a problem. The CM9 will change over to the new frequency pretty much immediately, and I can't imagine how running the AP on the wrong channel would have damaged the coax run or the antenna. (Not saying it's impossible, just very unlikely IMO.) 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/
Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]
All, I guess at this point I am at a loss of words. The original press release with contact info was posted in my first email. Did the contact person at the TIA ever get back to you about the press release? What should be done in the future to avoid a situation like this? I was under the impression there were people on this list to make corrections when the media passes on misinformation. We do need to thank Frannie for clearing this up. Below is a link to explain why 608-614 Mhz spectrum cannot be used for wireless broadband. http://www.medical.philips.com/us/products/patient_monitoring/products/philips_telemetry_system/index.html Philips Telemetry System (608-614 MHz) Fresh capabilities for our proven system (operating at 608-614 MHz) Philips classic telemetry systems are installed in thousands of healthcare facilities around the world, and they have proven both durable and adaptable for over a decade. Upgraded transmitters combine standard and EASI derived 12-lead ECG* monitoring on a single device, run on AA batteries, and provide audio feedback for many tasks. They’re also upgradeable to run on our cellular telemetry system. Apologies to all, Dawn DiPietro John Scrivner wrote: We have a problem. It appears the press release we read earlier was wrong. Attached is the exact language of the bill. It is asking for ALL tv channels except for one small band. I do not know what is wrong with that one channel but this is actually a VERY GOOD bill. I am sorry for the mix up. I only acted on what I was told was the purpose of the bill. Had I read the ACTUAL bill this would not have happened. Dawn DiPietro, can you please send me contact information on the press outlet that sent out the previous information? It is time for us to SUPPORT this bill If you need help with language let me know but apparently I am not much help as I told you guys the wrong position on this one.. I learned a valuable lesson here gang. I will never again send out any notices to all of you for action prior to reading the ACTUAL bill and not just what he news tells us it is. I am very, very sorry for this terrible mix up. Please forgive me. Scriv IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on * A BILL * To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to promote and expedite wireless broadband deployment in rural and other areas, and for other purposes. // /Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- / // /tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled/, ** *SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. * This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Broadband for Communities Act’’. 2 ** *SEC. 2. UNUSED TELEVISION SPECTRUM MADE AVAILABLE * ** *FOR WIRELESS USE. * Part I of title III of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: ** *‘‘SEC. 342. UNUSED BROADCAST TELEVISION SPECTRUM * ** *MADE AVAILABLE FOR WIRELESS USE. * ‘‘Any unused broadcast television spectrum in the band between 54 and 698 megaHertz, inclusive, other than spectrum in the band between 608 and 614 mega- Hertz, inclusive, may be used by unlicensed devices, in- cluding wireless broadband devices.’’. ** *SEC. 3. FCC TO FACILITATE USE. * Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall— (1) adopt minimal technical and device rules in ET Docket Nos. 02–380 and 04–186 to facilitate the robust and efficient use of the spectrum made available under section 342 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 342) by unlicensed devices, including wireless broadband devices; and (2) establish rules and procedures to— (A) protect incumbent licensed services, in- cluding broadcast television and public safety equipment, operating pursuant to their licenses 3 from harmful interference from such unlicensed devices; (B) address complaints from licensed broadcast stations that an unlicensed device using such spectrum causes harmful inter- ference that include verification, in the field, of actual harmful interference; (C) require manufacturers of unlicensed devices designed to be operated in this spectrum to submit a plan to the Commission to remedy actual harmful interference to the extent that harmful interference is found by the Commis- sion which may include disabling or modifying the unlicensed device remotely; and (D) require certification of unlicensed de- vices designed to be operated in that spectrum to ensure that they meet the technical criteria established under paragraph (1) and can per- form the functions described in subparagraph (C). March 31, 2006 (3:22 PM) *From:* John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL
RE: [WISPA] Re: CPE Cost Ideas Needed
WR. Ive never used the Trango 900 Mhz. WR needs a POE CCU. Not sure if Trango has that option or not. c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Joshua M. Andrews Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 8:54 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Re: CPE Cost Ideas Needed Chris: I've heard so much about Trango that I'm really intrigued! What is it that you use for 900 MHz? Why would I choose Trango over WaveRider anyway? Thanks. - Pete: Thank you very much for the detailed response. I wouldn't say I will be desperate as I'm doing it mostly as a benefit to the community and money is a side-note for me (I already have a great career so I'm really in it for the fun). Have you tried Trango's 900 MHz, and if so, did it compare well to WaveRider? Secondly, what equipment for the 802.11b have you had the success with? Thanks again! -- JohnnyO: It seems to be the consensus is not to have any contracts for the service. It also seems to be the consensus that other successful WISPs are having great success not charging rock bottom prices. I've heard great things about WaveRider in general and it seems virtually everyone also says that if I offer more than 1 Mbps to customers then I'm pushing it with WaveRider. You're right about the local business comments.. I've seen it work very well in our tight-nit community. I probably should up the price a bit and rethink my WaveRider strategy. I HAVE to have 900 MHz.. other WISPs have seriously come and gone with their 2.4 GHz stuff due to the trees and so I'm stuck between a rock (WaveRider) and a hard place (Trango). Any ideas in this regard? Thank you kindly. - Mark: Thank you very much for your comments. I'm planning on the snail pace to get started. :) Brian: I can probably help you with this. What OS is the sub using? What kind of backup do you want? Data only, Ghosting, Full backups with incremental, how often, etc? How many machines, is this server-based, or client-based? Matt: You stated that you used trango in the past and don't use them anymore... who do you use now? Thanks. Blair: I wanna be your friend. I need hand-holding and you sound like you were in the position I'm in today and can really help. What equipment are you using? Thanks. Sincerely, Joshua -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Big trouble with my first AP...
Is it possible the u.fl connectors have come loose? I have had a few issues w/ the u.fl connection coming slightly loose during the tower climb - Thanks Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 3:04 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Big trouble with my first AP... David, I was afraid I sounded like a newbie... Anyway, I've had the radios on different channels and the same ones; would this effect the signal strength or the s/n ratio? Signal strength is where the problem is. Also I wasn't worried that the coax or antennas were damaged, the radio itself was my worry . I tried both polarities on the antenna I was testing with. David E. Smith wrote: Jason wrote: I have a difficult question for the list. I was testing my 1st routerboard/mikrotik ap this evening with terrible results. Let me give you the rundown of what I have and what has happened. [ snip: a fairly typical kinda setup ] Forgive me for going through all the really obvious newbie stuff, but the sooner we can rule it out, the sooner we can get to the juicy stuff. :) Are the three APs on the same channel, or three different channels? And are they using the same SSID or different ones? Also, did you make sure your rootenna was correctly polarized to point to the AP? One other thing which might be the cause is that while I was setting up the mikrotik/routerboard I activated the 3 cm9 radios not realizing that they were set for the 5 Ghz band. They were probably like that for an hour until I got to that part of the setup. Perhaps something is wrong now or are the cm9's forgiving? That shouldn't be a problem. The CM9 will change over to the new frequency pretty much immediately, and I can't imagine how running the AP on the wrong channel would have damaged the coax run or the antenna. (Not saying it's impossible, just very unlikely IMO.) 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/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/303 - Release Date: 04/06/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/304 - Release Date: 04/07/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Re: CPE Cost Ideas Needed
Carl: You really hammered home the point that everyone seems to be making. It's not about the price.. it's about the quality of the technical and social service provided. Thank you for your excellent points. -- Chris Cooper: Yes, they have POE on their CPE's. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]
Thanks Dawn. I was in a bit of a panic when I asked for the contact info for the fist press release. I went back and re-read your post after that and contacted the TIA press agent directly. I copied this list on that message asking for them to correct the information. Thanks all and so sorry, Scriv Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, I guess at this point I am at a loss of words. The original press release with contact info was posted in my first email. Did the contact person at the TIA ever get back to you about the press release? What should be done in the future to avoid a situation like this? I was under the impression there were people on this list to make corrections when the media passes on misinformation. We do need to thank Frannie for clearing this up. Below is a link to explain why 608-614 Mhz spectrum cannot be used for wireless broadband. http://www.medical.philips.com/us/products/patient_monitoring/products/philips_telemetry_system/index.html Philips Telemetry System (608-614 MHz) Fresh capabilities for our proven system (operating at 608-614 MHz) Philips classic telemetry systems are installed in thousands of healthcare facilities around the world, and they have proven both durable and adaptable for over a decade. Upgraded transmitters combine standard and EASI derived 12-lead ECG* monitoring on a single device, run on AA batteries, and provide audio feedback for many tasks. They’re also upgradeable to run on our cellular telemetry system. Apologies to all, Dawn DiPietro John Scrivner wrote: We have a problem. It appears the press release we read earlier was wrong. Attached is the exact language of the bill. It is asking for ALL tv channels except for one small band. I do not know what is wrong with that one channel but this is actually a VERY GOOD bill. I am sorry for the mix up. I only acted on what I was told was the purpose of the bill. Had I read the ACTUAL bill this would not have happened. Dawn DiPietro, can you please send me contact information on the press outlet that sent out the previous information? It is time for us to SUPPORT this bill If you need help with language let me know but apparently I am not much help as I told you guys the wrong position on this one.. I learned a valuable lesson here gang. I will never again send out any notices to all of you for action prior to reading the ACTUAL bill and not just what he news tells us it is. I am very, very sorry for this terrible mix up. Please forgive me. Scriv IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on * A BILL * To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to promote and expedite wireless broadband deployment in rural and other areas, and for other purposes. // /Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- / // /tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled/, ** *SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. * This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Broadband for Communities Act’’. 2 ** *SEC. 2. UNUSED TELEVISION SPECTRUM MADE AVAILABLE * ** *FOR WIRELESS USE. * Part I of title III of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: ** *‘‘SEC. 342. UNUSED BROADCAST TELEVISION SPECTRUM * ** *MADE AVAILABLE FOR WIRELESS USE. * ‘‘Any unused broadcast television spectrum in the band between 54 and 698 megaHertz, inclusive, other than spectrum in the band between 608 and 614 mega- Hertz, inclusive, may be used by unlicensed devices, in- cluding wireless broadband devices.’’. ** *SEC. 3. FCC TO FACILITATE USE. * Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall— (1) adopt minimal technical and device rules in ET Docket Nos. 02–380 and 04–186 to facilitate the robust and efficient use of the spectrum made available under section 342 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 342) by unlicensed devices, including wireless broadband devices; and (2) establish rules and procedures to— (A) protect incumbent licensed services, in- cluding broadcast television and public safety equipment, operating pursuant to their licenses 3 from harmful interference from such unlicensed devices; (B) address complaints from licensed broadcast stations that an unlicensed device using such spectrum causes harmful inter- ference that include verification, in the field, of actual harmful interference; (C) require manufacturers of unlicensed devices designed to be operated in this spectrum to submit a plan to the Commission to remedy actual harmful interference to the extent that harmful interference is found by the Commis- sion which may include disabling or modifying the unlicensed device remotely; and (D) require certification of unlicensed de- vices
Re: [WISPA] Re: CPE Cost Ideas Needed
I have been told that the new WR CCU is POE-able. I don't know about Trango either. pd chris cooper wrote: WR. Ive never used the Trango 900 Mhz. WR needs a POE CCU. Not sure if Trango has that option or not. c -Original Message- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Joshua M. Andrews *Sent:* Friday, April 07, 2006 8:54 PM *To:* wireless@wispa.org *Subject:* [WISPA] Re: CPE Cost Ideas Needed Chris: I've heard so much about Trango that I'm really intrigued! What is it that you use for 900 MHz? Why would I choose Trango over WaveRider anyway? Thanks. - Pete: Thank you very much for the detailed response. I wouldn't say I will be desperate as I'm doing it mostly as a benefit to the community and money is a side-note for me (I already have a great career so I'm really in it for the fun). Have you tried Trango's 900 MHz, and if so, did it compare well to WaveRider? Secondly, what equipment for the 802.11b have you had the success with? Thanks again! -- JohnnyO: It seems to be the consensus is not to have any contracts for the service. It also seems to be the consensus that other successful WISPs are having great success not charging rock bottom prices. I've heard great things about WaveRider in general and it seems virtually everyone also says that if I offer more than 1 Mbps to customers then I'm pushing it with WaveRider. You're right about the local business comments.. I've seen it work very well in our tight-nit community. I probably should up the price a bit and rethink my WaveRider strategy. I HAVE to have 900 MHz.. other WISPs have seriously come and gone with their 2.4 GHz stuff due to the trees and so I'm stuck between a rock (WaveRider) and a hard place (Trango). Any ideas in this regard? Thank you kindly. - Mark: Thank you very much for your comments. I'm planning on the snail pace to get started. :) Brian: I can probably help you with this. What OS is the sub using? What kind of backup do you want? Data only, Ghosting, Full backups with incremental, how often, etc? How many machines, is this server-based, or client-based? Matt: You stated that you used trango in the past and don't use them anymore... who do you use now? Thanks. Blair: I wanna be your friend. I need hand-holding and you sound like you were in the position I'm in today and can really help. What equipment are you using? Thanks. Sincerely, Joshua No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/304 - Release Date: 4/7/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Big trouble with my first AP...
Since the original post listed using CM9's, its possible that Antenna A/Antenna B selection is incorrect. Pete Davis NoDial.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it possible the u.fl connectors have come loose? I have had a few issues w/ the u.fl connection coming slightly loose during the tower climb - Thanks Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Jason Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 3:04 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Big trouble with my first AP... David, I was afraid I sounded like a newbie... Anyway, I've had the radios on different channels and the same ones; would this effect the signal strength or the s/n ratio? Signal strength is where the problem is. Also I wasn't worried that the coax or antennas were damaged, the radio itself was my worry . I tried both polarities on the antenna I was testing with. David E. Smith wrote: Jason wrote: I have a difficult question for the list. I was testing my 1st routerboard/mikrotik ap this evening with terrible results. Let me give you the rundown of what I have and what has happened. [ snip: a fairly typical kinda setup ] Forgive me for going through all the really obvious newbie stuff, but the sooner we can rule it out, the sooner we can get to the juicy stuff. :) Are the three APs on the same channel, or three different channels? And are they using the same SSID or different ones? Also, did you make sure your rootenna was correctly polarized to point to the AP? One other thing which might be the cause is that while I was setting up the mikrotik/routerboard I activated the 3 cm9 radios not realizing that they were set for the 5 Ghz band. They were probably like that for an hour until I got to that part of the setup. Perhaps something is wrong now or are the cm9's forgiving? That shouldn't be a problem. The CM9 will change over to the new frequency pretty much immediately, and I can't imagine how running the AP on the wrong channel would have damaged the coax run or the antenna. (Not saying it's impossible, just very unlikely IMO.) 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/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/303 - Release Date: 04/06/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]
I'll tell all of the wispa list members something. JOHN SCRIVNER is on of the best allies any of us have. His untiring devotion to the WISP industry is amazing. MARLON SHAFER also has but endless hours of volunteer time into this effort. These two gentlemen deserve a standing ovation from around the country. I have been relatively absent from the list the last few months building new systems and rebuilding old systems. I owed my staff, my business and my customers some time dedicated to them. Hopefully, I can start getting more involved again to help stimulate this legislation. Thanks to all who have sent letters and commented on this legislation. Lets all keep it up. Regards, Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Office 260-307-4000 Cell 260-918-4340 VoIP www.oibw.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 10:58 AM To: WISPA General List Cc: Frannie Wellings Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum] Thanks Dawn. I was in a bit of a panic when I asked for the contact info for the fist press release. I went back and re-read your post after that and contacted the TIA press agent directly. I copied this list on that message asking for them to correct the information. Thanks all and so sorry, Scriv Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, I guess at this point I am at a loss of words. The original press release with contact info was posted in my first email. Did the contact person at the TIA ever get back to you about the press release? What should be done in the future to avoid a situation like this? I was under the impression there were people on this list to make corrections when the media passes on misinformation. We do need to thank Frannie for clearing this up. Below is a link to explain why 608-614 Mhz spectrum cannot be used for wireless broadband. http://www.medical.philips.com/us/products/patient_monitoring/products/phili ps_telemetry_system/index.html Philips Telemetry System (608-614 MHz) Fresh capabilities for our proven system (operating at 608-614 MHz) Philips classic telemetry systems are installed in thousands of healthcare facilities around the world, and they have proven both durable and adaptable for over a decade. Upgraded transmitters combine standard and EASI derived 12-lead ECG* monitoring on a single device, run on AA batteries, and provide audio feedback for many tasks. They're also upgradeable to run on our cellular telemetry system. Apologies to all, Dawn DiPietro John Scrivner wrote: We have a problem. It appears the press release we read earlier was wrong. Attached is the exact language of the bill. It is asking for ALL tv channels except for one small band. I do not know what is wrong with that one channel but this is actually a VERY GOOD bill. I am sorry for the mix up. I only acted on what I was told was the purpose of the bill. Had I read the ACTUAL bill this would not have happened. Dawn DiPietro, can you please send me contact information on the press outlet that sent out the previous information? It is time for us to SUPPORT this bill If you need help with language let me know but apparently I am not much help as I told you guys the wrong position on this one.. I learned a valuable lesson here gang. I will never again send out any notices to all of you for action prior to reading the ACTUAL bill and not just what he news tells us it is. I am very, very sorry for this terrible mix up. Please forgive me. Scriv IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on * A BILL * To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to promote and expedite wireless broadband deployment in rural and other areas, and for other purposes. // /Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- / // /tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled/, ** *SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. * This Act may be cited as the ''American Broadband for Communities Act''. 2 ** *SEC. 2. UNUSED TELEVISION SPECTRUM MADE AVAILABLE * ** *FOR WIRELESS USE. * Part I of title III of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: ** *''SEC. 342. UNUSED BROADCAST TELEVISION SPECTRUM * ** *MADE AVAILABLE FOR WIRELESS USE. * ''Any unused broadcast television spectrum in the band between 54 and 698 megaHertz, inclusive, other than spectrum in the band between 608 and 614 mega- Hertz, inclusive, may be used by unlicensed devices, in- cluding wireless broadband devices.''. ** *SEC. 3. FCC TO FACILITATE USE. * Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]
Rick and All, I agree. Thank you to everyone that has helped put this whole organization together and stuck it out even when the membership and lists get restless and cranky. ;-) Regards, Dawn DiPietro On 4/8/06, Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll tell all of the wispa list members something. JOHN SCRIVNER is on of the best allies any of us have. His untiring devotion to the WISP industry is amazing. MARLON SHAFER also has but endless hours of volunteer time into this effort. These two gentlemen deserve a standing ovation from around the country. I have been relatively absent from the list the last few months building new systems and rebuilding old systems. I owed my staff, my business and my customers some time dedicated to them. Hopefully, I can start getting more involved again to help stimulate this legislation. Thanks to all who have sent letters and commented on this legislation. Lets all keep it up. Regards, Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Office 260-307-4000 Cell 260-918-4340 VoIP www.oibw.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 10:58 AM To: WISPA General List Cc: Frannie Wellings Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum] Thanks Dawn. I was in a bit of a panic when I asked for the contact info for the fist press release. I went back and re-read your post after that and contacted the TIA press agent directly. I copied this list on that message asking for them to correct the information. Thanks all and so sorry, Scriv Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, I guess at this point I am at a loss of words. The original press release with contact info was posted in my first email. Did the contact person at the TIA ever get back to you about the press release? What should be done in the future to avoid a situation like this? I was under the impression there were people on this list to make corrections when the media passes on misinformation. We do need to thank Frannie for clearing this up. Below is a link to explain why 608-614 Mhz spectrum cannot be used for wireless broadband. http://www.medical.philips.com/us/products/patient_monitoring/products/phili ps_telemetry_system/index.html Philips Telemetry System (608-614 MHz) Fresh capabilities for our proven system (operating at 608-614 MHz) Philips classic telemetry systems are installed in thousands of healthcare facilities around the world, and they have proven both durable and adaptable for over a decade. Upgraded transmitters combine standard and EASI derived 12-lead ECG* monitoring on a single device, run on AA batteries, and provide audio feedback for many tasks. They're also upgradeable to run on our cellular telemetry system. Apologies to all, Dawn DiPietro John Scrivner wrote: We have a problem. It appears the press release we read earlier was wrong. Attached is the exact language of the bill. It is asking for ALL tv channels except for one small band. I do not know what is wrong with that one channel but this is actually a VERY GOOD bill. I am sorry for the mix up. I only acted on what I was told was the purpose of the bill. Had I read the ACTUAL bill this would not have happened. Dawn DiPietro, can you please send me contact information on the press outlet that sent out the previous information? It is time for us to SUPPORT this bill If you need help with language let me know but apparently I am not much help as I told you guys the wrong position on this one.. I learned a valuable lesson here gang. I will never again send out any notices to all of you for action prior to reading the ACTUAL bill and not just what he news tells us it is. I am very, very sorry for this terrible mix up. Please forgive me. Scriv IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on * A BILL * To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to promote and expedite wireless broadband deployment in rural and other areas, and for other purposes. // /Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- / // /tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled/, ** *SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. * This Act may be cited as the ''American Broadband for Communities Act''. 2 ** *SEC. 2. UNUSED TELEVISION SPECTRUM MADE AVAILABLE * ** *FOR WIRELESS USE. * Part I of title III of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: ** *''SEC. 342. UNUSED BROADCAST TELEVISION SPECTRUM * ** *MADE AVAILABLE FOR WIRELESS
Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband
Grin... It includes the combo to the building so you can pull them and put them in your truck! What a deal! - Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 9:42 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DSL vs. Wireless Broadband Blake Bowers wrote: And now I can't sell those DS3 Digital microwave radios from the MCI system for anything more than 10 cents a pound. Does that price include shipping? :D 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: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]
It is a little strange to have a few MHz be left out, but with that range, who cares? This will make for some very cool possibilities... John -Original Message- From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 7, 2006 09:24 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum] We have a problem. It appears the press release we read earlier was wrong. Attached is the exact language of the bill. It is asking for ALL tv channels except for one small band. I do not know what is wrong with that one channel but this is actually a VERY GOOD bill. I am sorry for the mix up. I only acted on what I was told was the purpose of the bill. Had I read the ACTUAL bill this would not have happened. Dawn DiPietro, can you please send me contact information on the press outlet that sent out the previous information? It is time for us to SUPPORT this bill If you need help with language let me know but apparently I am not much help as I told you guys the wrong position on this one.. I learned a valuable lesson here gang. I will never again send out any notices to all of you for action prior to reading the ACTUAL bill and not just what he news tells us it is. I am very, very sorry for this terrible mix up. Please forgive me. Scriv IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on * A BILL * To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to promote and expedite wireless broadband deployment in rural and other areas, and for other purposes. // /Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- / // /tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled/, ** *SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. * This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Broadband for Communities Act’’. 2 ** *SEC. 2. UNUSED TELEVISION SPECTRUM MADE AVAILABLE * ** *FOR WIRELESS USE. * Part I of title III of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: ** *‘‘SEC. 342. UNUSED BROADCAST TELEVISION SPECTRUM * ** *MADE AVAILABLE FOR WIRELESS USE. * ‘‘Any unused broadcast television spectrum in the band between 54 and 698 megaHertz, inclusive, other than spectrum in the band between 608 and 614 mega- Hertz, inclusive, may be used by unlicensed devices, in- cluding wireless broadband devices.’’. ** *SEC. 3. FCC TO FACILITATE USE. * Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall— (1) adopt minimal technical and device rules in ET Docket Nos. 02–380 and 04–186 to facilitate the robust and efficient use of the spectrum made available under section 342 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 342) by unlicensed devices, including wireless broadband devices; and (2) establish rules and procedures to— (A) protect incumbent licensed services, in- cluding broadcast television and public safety equipment, operating pursuant to their licenses 3 from harmful interference from such unlicensed devices; (B) address complaints from licensed broadcast stations that an unlicensed device using such spectrum causes harmful inter- ference that include verification, in the field, of actual harmful interference; (C) require manufacturers of unlicensed devices designed to be operated in this spectrum to submit a plan to the Commission to remedy actual harmful interference to the extent that harmful interference is found by the Commis- sion which may include disabling or modifying the unlicensed device remotely; and (D) require certification of unlicensed de- vices designed to be operated in that spectrum to ensure that they meet the technical criteria established under paragraph (1) and can per- form the functions described in subparagraph (C). March 31, 2006 (3:22 PM) *From:* John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Fri 07/04/2006 15:07 *To:* Frannie Wellings *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum I need a copy of this bill right away. Scriv Frannie Wellings wrote: Hey John, The Inslee bill is a good bill - it doesn't do what you're saying here. I'm not sure what you've read, but it opens up spectrum between 54-698 MHz (except 608-614) for unlicensed use just like one of the Senate bills. He's introduced it as a House companion bill. The only difference is a bit of additional language about protection from interference. This is legislation we need to support. Can you review the bill and get back to me? If you don't have the text I can send it over. I'm out of town, but could get a copy to send to you. Best, Frannie -- 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
Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]
Thanks for the link, it seemed kind of strange why that little slice of 6 MHz was left out. John -Original Message- From: Dawn DiPietro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2006 06:43 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum] All, I guess at this point I am at a loss of words. The original press release with contact info was posted in my first email. Did the contact person at the TIA ever get back to you about the press release? What should be done in the future to avoid a situation like this? I was under the impression there were people on this list to make corrections when the media passes on misinformation. We do need to thank Frannie for clearing this up. Below is a link to explain why 608-614 Mhz spectrum cannot be used for wireless broadband. http://www.medical.philips.com/us/products/patient_monitoring/products/philips_telemetry_system/index.html Philips Telemetry System (608-614 MHz) Fresh capabilities for our proven system (operating at 608-614 MHz) Philips classic telemetry systems are installed in thousands of healthcare facilities around the world, and they have proven both durable and adaptable for over a decade. Upgraded transmitters combine standard and EASI derived 12-lead ECG* monitoring on a single device, run on AA batteries, and provide audio feedback for many tasks. They’re also upgradeable to run on our cellular telemetry system. Apologies to all, Dawn DiPietro John Scrivner wrote: We have a problem. It appears the press release we read earlier was wrong. Attached is the exact language of the bill. It is asking for ALL tv channels except for one small band. I do not know what is wrong with that one channel but this is actually a VERY GOOD bill. I am sorry for the mix up. I only acted on what I was told was the purpose of the bill. Had I read the ACTUAL bill this would not have happened. Dawn DiPietro, can you please send me contact information on the press outlet that sent out the previous information? It is time for us to SUPPORT this bill If you need help with language let me know but apparently I am not much help as I told you guys the wrong position on this one.. I learned a valuable lesson here gang. I will never again send out any notices to all of you for action prior to reading the ACTUAL bill and not just what he news tells us it is. I am very, very sorry for this terrible mix up. Please forgive me. Scriv IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on * A BILL * To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to promote and expedite wireless broadband deployment in rural and other areas, and for other purposes. // /Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- / // /tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled/, ** *SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. * This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Broadband for Communities Act’’. 2 ** *SEC. 2. UNUSED TELEVISION SPECTRUM MADE AVAILABLE * ** *FOR WIRELESS USE. * Part I of title III of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: ** *‘‘SEC. 342. UNUSED BROADCAST TELEVISION SPECTRUM * ** *MADE AVAILABLE FOR WIRELESS USE. * ‘‘Any unused broadcast television spectrum in the band between 54 and 698 megaHertz, inclusive, other than spectrum in the band between 608 and 614 mega- Hertz, inclusive, may be used by unlicensed devices, in- cluding wireless broadband devices.’’. ** *SEC. 3. FCC TO FACILITATE USE. * Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall— (1) adopt minimal technical and device rules in ET Docket Nos. 02–380 and 04–186 to facilitate the robust and efficient use of the spectrum made available under section 342 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 342) by unlicensed devices, including wireless broadband devices; and (2) establish rules and procedures to— (A) protect incumbent licensed services, in- cluding broadcast television and public safety equipment, operating pursuant to their licenses 3 from harmful interference from such unlicensed devices; (B) address complaints from licensed broadcast stations that an unlicensed device using such spectrum causes harmful inter- ference that include verification, in the field, of actual harmful interference; (C) require manufacturers of unlicensed devices designed to be operated in this spectrum to submit a plan to the Commission to remedy actual harmful interference to the extent that harmful interference is found by the Commis- sion which may include disabling or modifying the unlicensed device remotely; and (D) require
Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum]
Has there been any word on what the power limitations in the whitespace band will be? Or is this up to the FCC when the bills pass? I wish the band was WISP-only, and registered like 3650 to keep things proper. Thanks, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tech Support Call Center Interest ?
Rick Smith wrote: Having experience in both call center mangement and tech support department creation / operations and management, I've got half a mind to sit a couple of technical people down and start up a technical support call center and answering service, with WISPs and ISPs in mind... I'd feel sorry for the folks answering the phones, because they'd have to know about a squillion different wireless systems. Hm. Okay, Mr. Sixpack. Before I can help you, just a few quick questions. First, is your ISP using Alvarion, Karlnet, Trango, Mikrotik, StarOS, or Waverider towers? (And that's just the stuff in MY network. Now take that kind of diversity and multiply it by a couple hundred WISPs and your phone guys are gonna have headaches and a ten-foot stack of manuals on their desks.) Not to mention the fact that every WISP I've seen has different, and mostly-incompatible ways of doing things. I've seen networks that use DHCP for everything, RFC1918 overlay networks, static IPs, static IPs assigned through DHCP, places where the whole network is NATted behind someone's DSL line, and so on and so on. For some of those network setups, it would be darn near impossible to give someone not in the office/NOC the necessary access to even try to troubleshoot a problem. And honestly, at least in my office, most wireless issues are either solved in five minutes, or they require a service call. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's a market for this, and I wish you all the best. I just suspect, in my usual pessimistic way, that it'd be a lot harder to do than you might think. 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/
Re: [WISPA] Tech Support Call Center Interest ?
Google GTC tech support. They are reasonable. Level 1 and level 2 techs allow them to get their costs down. If you have something specifically for wisps that would be more valuable. But there is a lot involved in doing this on. As a new customer of yours, I would expect you to familiarize your techs with my way of doing things so you can be useful for my customers when they call. My business partner owns a call center and we have looked at doing this a little without much interest in taking the plunge to do it. GTC had a hefty startup fee (I think it was $5k) to have one of their managers get familiar with my system and develop training for their L1 L2 techs. Then they took the number of subscribers we had and made the base monthly fee ($1 x # of subs). That gives you (1 minute x # of subs) of 'tech time' per month. Any overage would be about $.60 per minute for that month. Not a bad deal. I didn't feel that the diversity of my system lent itself well to a 3rd party tech support at the time, and since then everything I have chosen to deploy has had a consideration given to 'Call Center Tech Support'. Whether we do the tech support or not, it is worth it to spend time and money to streamline tech support methods so we can hire support personnel that are further down on the food chain. Mark -Original Message- From: Rick Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 18:04:12 To:WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Tech Support Call Center Interest ? I have a customer that just installed a $100k phone system and is lookin for other uses. Having experience in both call center mangement and tech support department creation / operations and management, I've got half a mind to sit a couple of technical people down and start up a technical support call center and answering service, with WISPs and ISPs in mind... I've seen outrageous prices for this service, when lookin for my own business, and could probably beat a lot of pricing out there just by leveraging my sister company's purchase... Any input ? How much is too much when it comes to per call / per minute charges, etc Feedback would be great, and WISPA members would get discounts for using the service... R -- 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] Tech Support Call Center Interest ?
tanks for the input...granted, diversity makes it tough. But, there's something common to them all, on a level 1 basis... when in doubt, reboot...check cables...check power...etc... I wouldn't do this blind, I'd ask for customer names, IP's, first ping, second ping test, etc.. It would have to be a generic test at least on the first level. 2nd level tech could get a little more detailed, but you're right - 3 to 5 minutes and you determine a truck roll or not. I'm thinking of doing this to relieve the WISP from the B.S. daily grind stuff - idiot users and common troubleshooting - giving them something on a 2nd or 3rd level reference to work with instead of wasting their precious time. Something to contemplate I'm sure. Thanks R David E. Smith wrote: Rick Smith wrote: Having experience in both call center mangement and tech support department creation / operations and management, I've got half a mind to sit a couple of technical people down and start up a technical support call center and answering service, with WISPs and ISPs in mind... I'd feel sorry for the folks answering the phones, because they'd have to know about a squillion different wireless systems. Hm. Okay, Mr. Sixpack. Before I can help you, just a few quick questions. First, is your ISP using Alvarion, Karlnet, Trango, Mikrotik, StarOS, or Waverider towers? (And that's just the stuff in MY network. Now take that kind of diversity and multiply it by a couple hundred WISPs and your phone guys are gonna have headaches and a ten-foot stack of manuals on their desks.) Not to mention the fact that every WISP I've seen has different, and mostly-incompatible ways of doing things. I've seen networks that use DHCP for everything, RFC1918 overlay networks, static IPs, static IPs assigned through DHCP, places where the whole network is NATted behind someone's DSL line, and so on and so on. For some of those network setups, it would be darn near impossible to give someone not in the office/NOC the necessary access to even try to troubleshoot a problem. And honestly, at least in my office, most wireless issues are either solved in five minutes, or they require a service call. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's a market for this, and I wish you all the best. I just suspect, in my usual pessimistic way, that it'd be a lot harder to do than you might think. 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/
RE: [WISPA] Re: CPE Cost Ideas Needed
Title: Message $899 including a 70ft bracketed tower. Sorry Blair, but I am with Tom on this one. There is no such thing as a $899.00 "bracketed" tower that is installed properly. There are no small towers out there rated at 70ft "bracketed" to anything. You need at minimum 1yd of concrete for a Rohn25 40ft FreeStanding tower that is bracketed to the side of the house.. l $5500.00 for a freestanding tower ? ? ? ? Are you talking about just the steel ? What about base foundation ? cement ? labor ? JohnnyO -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggiSent: Friday, April 07, 2006 4:55 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] Re: CPE Cost Ideas Needed $59.95 per month small business, no contrac I'm not sure how that is a good thing. Riskwith no contract, and no margin to justify the risk. If its a retail place with 1 or 2 computers we got a asyncronis plan for $99, but won't pick up the phone for less than $150. That I want to see. Whats the breakdown of your budget for it? And time for errection? Tom DeReggiRapidDSL Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Blair Davis To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 3:20 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: CPE Cost Ideas Needed I have to agree with Mark here. We are using the same model he is and we have more work than we know what to do with$39.95 per month home, no contract / $59.95 per month small business, no contract / Higher rates for special services and/or special QoS, contract requiredInstalls start at $199 and range to $899 including a 70ft bracketed tower. Special cases go higher One subdivision just approved $5500 for a freestanding tower to serve their 30 homes in a small valley. We own all radio equipment.We clear our equipment and supplies cost for any new install from the install fee. Sometimes, when we 'recycle' a radio, we even make money on an install, but we don't plan on it. The labor part of the install is covered by the first month or so's fees.We allow self install if the customer buys his own equipment. No setup charges for self install but unit must be approved prior to install and must meet our snr requirements.We no longer try to compete head-to-head with the cable or telephone companies. They can have the $15 per month bottom feeders. There is way too much churn in those markets for us.Another thing that helps us is that we are more than an ISP. We are a full service computer shop as well. When our customer calls in with a problem, and the radio gear checks out, we don't pass them off as a problem in your computer, we hand the call to our computer tech who can usually diagnose the problem over the phone. If we go out and the problem is in the computer, not our radio equipment, we waive the service call charge if the customer has our shop fix the computer, and we will pick it up for free since we are there.We credit a new customers first months service charge as a discount to the referring customer. We started out getting 4-5 calls a month for new service. We now get 5-7 a WEEK. All word of mouth. Make friends with the real estate agents. Give them flyers to give to their clients. Work hard to get the local, small businesses as clients. They will give you all the free, word of mouth advertising you can use. They will also let pass out your flyers to their customersIt works for us We now offer service anywhere in our county. We built our network with our own private funds. No government handouts. We are profitable, and have less than $10K in debt. We will retire that debt this year.Mark Nash wrote: Doesn't it depend on your customer base? Did we hear that this is a small town? Your way of doing things is like mine. Show value and provide a good service and you will have very little churn in your customers. There are a number of small towns (1k-4k population) that I service, but once we went into the larger town (200k), we would have to give it away, longer ROI on the CPE, lower margin, etc. And the customers are more snobby when they are used to being overserved by the larger companies (telco cable). Being a small company, I have found that our initial focus is the best for us: small towns rural area. We have a nice valley that (topographically-speaking) supports this well. We are members of the chambers of commerce, our kids have played sports together, see each other in the grocery store, etc. I have even gone so far as to work with the local hardware store to carry most of the general items that I use such as RJ45's, weatherproof tape, zip-ties, mounting screws
