Re: [WISPA] America's Internet Disconnect
Hehe... just for a technical clarification, most of the video infrastructure these days either is or is becoming IP based; the last mile will be the last part that is converted to IP based in the cable industry because of the expense of switching out 100 million set top boxes. The problem isn't IP; the problem is best effort IP where video (which requires a lot of guaranteed bandwidth in order to not look like your grandma's home videos) has to compete with everything else out there. So, just to clarify, IP as a technology is great for video; the Internet, on the other hand, is pretty lousy... But, definitely right on the rest--for _most_ uses, a reliable Internet connection is much more important than a fast connection. Hence why smart businesses will often eat the cost of a T1 which has a paltry 1.5Mb/s of bandwidth. The even bigger surprise is their utilization of that T1--by and large (on the T1's I've seen) _peak_ utilization is usually around 100-200Kb/s It's amazing how far bandwidth goes when you're not bit-torrenting movies :) On 7/25/07, Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well said! Internet is a rotten technology for video. IP just wasn't designed for it. Cable and Sat are great for video. I honestly don't understand what all of the hubub is about. I'm about to put broadband into a development with 1000++ lots. Almost all are camp trailers for summer residents. Those folks don't even have POWER out there yet! But they'll have broadband. Cheap and, at 1 to 3 megs it'll probably be better than what they really get at home. And why do they want broadband so bad? So they can stay in touch at work (could do that with sat access if it was really that big of a deal to them) and so they can email pics of the kids to grandma and pa. We as techs too often think that the world revolves around access. It doesn't. FEW people make a living via the net. Especially via 50meg access. For MOST people in this country the net is a tool! ONE tool out of many. It makes the job easier, faster and more convenient. The difference in job performance between waiting for fed ex and waiting for an email is night and day. The difference between getting that email in 100 seconds vs. 10 seconds is nothing. They'll still spend MOST of their time DOING something WITH the email! marlon - Original Message - From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:01 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] America's Internet Disconnect What a load of fluff. Almost 20 paragraphs from an FCC chairperson criticizing the current policy and not a single concrete suggestion, other than some vague more wireless and BPL suggestion... I'm not necessarily a fan of the direction at the FCC. Still, I'm not really sure that I've seen a smarter suggestion by and large on most of their decision (except for the ATT/BellSouth merger and perhaps their lack of a stance for net neutrality, although that's a complicated issue). Is 1.5Mb/s too slow? Really? The only application that needs faster connections at the consumer level is video; I seriously doubt that an extra bit of lag on the YouTube videos is really going to be a drag on our economy. I'm not against faster broadband. More bandwidth is good and, judging by developments in the cable and wireless industry, the next three years are going to be a watershed point in bandwidth capacity in which we'll see typical go from 3 Mb/s - 50Mb/s for urban areas. Still, I'm even more puzzled by the criticism of slow broadband on the WISPA list...Wireless is a very limited technology in terms of bandwidth (on a consumer, point to multi-point level). If anything, you should be grateful that you're not having to compete against 50 or 100Mb/s fiber connections :) -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 7/24/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: America's Internet Disconnect By Michael J. Copps Wednesday, November 8, 2006; A27 America's record in expanding broadband communication is so poor that it should be viewed as an outrage by every consumer and businessperson in the country. Too few of us have broadband connections, and those who do pay too much for service that is too slow. It's hurting our economy, and things are only going to get worse if we don't do something about it. The United States is 15th in the world in broadband penetration, according to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). When the ITU measured a broader digital opportunity index (considering price and other factors) we were 21st -- right after Estonia. Asian and European customers get home connections of 25 to 100 megabits per second (fast enough to stream high-definition video). Here, we pay almost twice as much for connections that are one-twentieth the speed. How have we fallen so far behind? Through lack of competition. As the Congressional Research Service puts
[WISPA] FCC Won't Sign Off On Google's Vision
FCC Won't Sign Off On Google's Vision Wholesale open access just isn't happening... 11:19AM Wednesday Jul 25 2007 by Karl tags: fcc competition business As we just got done predicting, it appears the FCC will be rejecting Google's open access demands for the upcoming 700Mhz spectrum auction. Google had promised to invest $4.6 billion at auction if the FCC forced auction winners to offer wholesale access to broadband competitors. Google has been arguing the spectrum is the last great chance for broadband competition in a duopoly market. But a key point Martin, a Republican, would not support, and that Google insists on, is a rule forcing whoever wins the spectrum at the auction to wholesale parts of it to other companies who want to resell it. Shocking. While Google may be new to lobbying, they knew this current FCC would never sign off on their plan fully, which made the promise of billions in investment largely empty (though helpful politically). Why doesn't Google just jump in under current rules? The system is designed so they'll lose to incumbents, they argue in a new blog post. While Google embraces the kinds of openness and innovation that are the hallmark of the Internet, the incumbents apparently prefer their existing business models. -Google's Richard Whitt Our position is simple enough. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and the other commissioners have argued persuasively that we need a real third pipe broadband competitor in this country. They also believe that the upcoming 700 MHz auction is the best way to get there. All we are saying is that, based on what we know, new broadband competition will emerge from the upcoming auction only if the FCC's rules allow it to happen. For Google, and other potential new entrants, the prevailing imbalance can be corrected most effectively by introducing license conditions based on open platforms. However, the closest to open platforms the FCC is willing to get is to force auction winners to offer unlocked devices on any network using the new spectrum. The chairman of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Rep. Edward Markey, is urging the FCC to go further if they want true broadband competition. Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tower hole size
Thanks to everyone for the responses. -RickG On 7/26/07, Jim Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How big a sst are you building? The two common methods are pier or pad pier Pier will almost always require a driller. Pad and Pier can allow you to excavate with a backhoe or track hoe, so it can be more do-it-yourself. But compacting it will requite a lot of work and dry soil conditions. The depth is dependant on soils analysis. Wind load, and tower design requirements. The manufacturer will typically provide this or you can try Hardy Engineering in Trussville, AL. The manufacturers do provide typical designs but know that the ultimate capacity of what you do in the air is directly related to what you bury. Good luck! Jim Bennett www.myRadioman.com 317-222-1329 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:32 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower hole size The engineering for tower mounting is available on the websites of most tower manufacturing and only costs $ if you want wet ink docs. This is no place for short cuts and I would suggest overbuilding your tower supporting base to a fault. Tracy Tippett [EMAIL PROTECTED] RickG wrote: Anyone know how big the hole should be for a self-supporting tower? Is there a guide or rule of thumb? Thanks! -RickG Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- Tracy Tippett Territorial Sales Manager Western US Canada Electro-Comm Distributing Inc. 303-917-2264 cell 866-582-7287 H-office 800-525-0173 ECD office [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ecommwireless.com www.shopecbiz.com Wireless data voice connectivity products are our only business! Our trained staff and friendly service, keep it simple, so you can concentrate on your business. Visit us soon either at our Denver headquarters or at one of the following industry events. Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference
Hmmm. Would you want to change out 60ish customers? Will canopy go 17+ miles? Will canopy NOT interfere with all of the other systems in the area? Canopy works well, but it's not always the solution. What I need to find are wifi radios that have good rx and tx properties. I also need to find some better hpol sectors. marlon - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:17 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] self inflicted interference What you need is Canopy Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:01 AM To: WISPA General List Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference two different netgear switches. Using my laptop at the tower things always work as expected. Just when the customers are further away (lower signal levels) causes the problems. I've moved things further apart and the system is running better than it ever has. But it should still be better.. What I need are better radios. Something with better oob tx and rx stats. marlon - Original Message - From: D. Ryan Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 5:13 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference Marlon, How are these APs hooked to each other? If you are using a hub, get a switch. If it is a switch, get a different switch. I have had this happen on 3 of my repeater sites. ryan On Jul 24, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Hi All, I just completely rebuilt a tower site. It had inconsistent speeds and I'd hit the point that I normally change things around. When I hit 50 people to a tower I'll sectorize it. On this tower I had an omni at about 25' (the hill is 700 feet over the valley) and a 15dB integrated Tranzeo ap at about 15'. Omni was vertical, sector was horizontal. I rented a manlift and put an hpol maxrad wisp series 120* adjustable beam sector at about 45', a vertical at 37ish and another horizontal at about 30. All antennas are also 6 to 8' horizontally separated. Each on a standoff attached to the different legs of the tower. All antennas are fed with lmr600 and the radios are right beside each other at the base of the tower (I'm too chicken to climb so the radios stay where I can get to them). Here's my problem, with all of the radios on and transmitting the speeds are worse than before for most customers. The sector to the west has 2 customers and sits at the 30' level and is hpol. Those two customers get around 4 megs down and up. The sector to the north east is vertical and a customer at 10ish miles gets .7 to 1.5 megs down and .25 to .5 up. The sector to the south east is hpol and sits at the 45 or 50' level. Customers get .6 to 1.5 down and .1 to .5 up. Unplug any two radios and speeds hit the 2 to 3 meg, sometimes 4 meg speed for all customers on that system. Plug the other one back in and speeds drop back down. The hpol maxrad antennas have a 30dB fb ratio. I've not yet looked at the patterns lately, as I recall they are pretty good though. APs are Teletronics 11-152s with metal cases. I've had GREAT luck with ALL of these components at other sites. Just never all at the same time and place like this. As most of you know, most of my coverage areas are VERY low density so I tend to use a lot of omni antennas, or am mounted on hills that have no coverage behind them so only one or two sectors are used. The two systems that interfere with each other the most are north east and south east. One's hpol one's vpol. They are on channel 1 and 9. To get things working MUCH better than they were before, I've replaced the north east and south east radios with Tranzeo ap's. I also moved the southeast antenna (actually put up a new one) back down to the roof of the shack. It's also a Tranzeo ap now. It, however, now sits in front of, though much lower than the west antenna, both are hpol though. If the channels are anywhere near the same for west and southeast the folks to the west get really slow speeds. I also moved the antennas on the tower further apart, they are now at least 5 or 6 feet apart from each other. I don't know how much that helped as I changed one of the radios to a Tranzeo at that same time. This helped but didn't fix the speed and consistency problem. That's when I moved the south east system back down where I could more easily get to it. Things still aren't as consistent as they need to be. If one system gets busy the others slow down. Any ideas? My first thought is to try a REALLY high end access point or two. You'd think those systems
Re: [WISPA] FBI Seeks To Pay Telecoms For Data
No, Peter. This was not off topic. I just deleted the rest of my response. I figure that I don't really have to explain my opinion to you. -m- Peter R. wrote: Well, this was totally off topic. Nothing better to improve relationships than anti-gov't chatter on an open, archived list. Thanks, M. (I think isp-chat is for this). - Peter Michael Erskine wrote: Jeromie; I am writing this before reading the rest of the thread. Please be patient with me. UHG!!! What a waste of resources. Can anyone point to even ONE terrorist that has even been sniffed out due to data from an ISP? I did a few quick Google searches and no case has popped up. I detest the FBI. We have a special relationship. We try to keep it professional. That said, can you imagine any situation in which the counter-intelligence responsible agency in the US government would ever find it desirable to actually document in public how they got the intelligence that lead to someone being sniffed out? Honestly, they are not likely to tell you how the got what they got until the court case is finished, are they? Even then there are mechanisms where information is not allowed to enter the official court record. IMO terrorist groups have show that they know how to operate and not leave a trail that leads anyplace important till after the fact. Is that your Intelligence Professional opinion? ;) Anyone remember when it was requested that encryptions have a back door? I think this is partly fall out from then. How many ISPs have people who use PGP? As a computer shop I can think of at least a few people who are using PGP/OpenPGP and one who uses a 2048bit cypher. What is WISPA`s official stance on this subject? Anyone remember when the Wall Street Journal reported that NSA could crack PGP? I do. All that said, do I think that this is a good idea? Hell no! I think that the FBI is like any other gubmit agency. Eighty percent of their employees go to work every day at 9 AM and get off at 3 PM. The rest of them carry the load. It is the 80% moron population that proposed this brain dead idea... Someone send them a note 'cause they impress me as much today as they ever have... One last thing worth remembering about the FBI. 800 background files buy a LOT of VOTES, especially when about 400 of them are Congress critters. That ain't politics. That is history. -m- Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] self inflicted interference
Canopy can. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 8:11 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference Can't sync 2.4 gig as I recall right? Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Streaming Video
I do a lot of web casting, so maybe I can help. I am heading to Sturgis SD next week to do the webcast for Fullthrottlewebcams.tv again. I use 12 30/fps closed circuit cams into 4 XP machines and stream out to a Co. called Abacast. They can relay that to an unlimited number of viewers. Last year we charged for access (they handled it) and the streams were protected by DRM (Digital Rights Management). The servers archived the traffic. This year the streams will be free. If you want to know more, just ask. I can give a list of all the equipment I use and it isn't too expensive. The Audio and Video come back to the surveillance room on CAT5 cable and use video/audio Baluns to let them go over twisted pair, along with power. BTW- I would not recommend using IP cams. Use CCTV cams into a capture card. The encoding is handled by Windows Media Encoder, a free program from Microsoft. Can you imagine that? Check my broadcasts out from the Aug 3rd-10th. One of the cams will be on Jessie James from Monster Garage/West Coast Chopper as he builds a bike onsite. http://fullthrottlewebcams.tv Ralph -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Reed Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 7:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Streaming Video Does anyone here have a list of the equipment to do streaming video? I may have an opportunity to setup some cameras for a local event and stream it to the web. We will want to be able to charge for access and to archive the feeds. Any suggestions? -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference
Can't sync 2.4 gig as I recall right? marlon - Original Message - From: Forrest W Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:23 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference Travis Johnson wrote: There are ways to do it without sync. I have over 120 Trango AP's (over 30 of them with omni antennas) all running perfectly. Some towers have as many as 4 AP's in the same band within 10ft of each other. The point of sync is that you don't generally have to think about where your AP's are located in relation to each other on the site unless you are re-using frequencies at the site. Many of my sites have 2 omni's within a few feet of each other, and on the same horizontal plane. We have one site which actually has two 120* sectors within 18 inches or so of each other, pointed in the same direction - and on adjacent freqencies (I.E. the Canopy equivalent of Trango's 5v and 6v). Without sync you have to think about things like separation and polarities and antenna patterns and so on to ensure that you get enough separation (frequency, distance, and/or polarization) between the AP's. Yes, you can do it. Yes, you can make it work. Yes, you can make it work well, but it's not easy. Just to clarify, the above is talking about synchronizing all radios at a specific site, not across your network. That's a whole different discussion. -forrest Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] WIMAX targets 700 Mhz.
http://www.telecommagazine.com/newsglobe/article.asp?HH_ID=AR_3334 -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 1713 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.19/917 - Release Date: 7/25/2007 1:16 AM --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth. Check out www.info-ed.com for information. Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] self inflicted interference
1- about 3 years ago I changed about a 100 on about 5 POPs 2-It wil go more than that, furthest 5.7 customer I have is 18 miles, 22 miles on 2.4 3- ;-) Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:14 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference Hmmm. Would you want to change out 60ish customers? Will canopy go 17+ miles? Will canopy NOT interfere with all of the other systems in the area? Canopy works well, but it's not always the solution. What I need to find are wifi radios that have good rx and tx properties. I also need to find some better hpol sectors. marlon - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:17 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] self inflicted interference What you need is Canopy Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:01 AM To: WISPA General List Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference two different netgear switches. Using my laptop at the tower things always work as expected. Just when the customers are further away (lower signal levels) causes the problems. I've moved things further apart and the system is running better than it ever has. But it should still be better.. What I need are better radios. Something with better oob tx and rx stats. marlon - Original Message - From: D. Ryan Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 5:13 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference Marlon, How are these APs hooked to each other? If you are using a hub, get a switch. If it is a switch, get a different switch. I have had this happen on 3 of my repeater sites. ryan On Jul 24, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Hi All, I just completely rebuilt a tower site. It had inconsistent speeds and I'd hit the point that I normally change things around. When I hit 50 people to a tower I'll sectorize it. On this tower I had an omni at about 25' (the hill is 700 feet over the valley) and a 15dB integrated Tranzeo ap at about 15'. Omni was vertical, sector was horizontal. I rented a manlift and put an hpol maxrad wisp series 120* adjustable beam sector at about 45', a vertical at 37ish and another horizontal at about 30. All antennas are also 6 to 8' horizontally separated. Each on a standoff attached to the different legs of the tower. All antennas are fed with lmr600 and the radios are right beside each other at the base of the tower (I'm too chicken to climb so the radios stay where I can get to them). Here's my problem, with all of the radios on and transmitting the speeds are worse than before for most customers. The sector to the west has 2 customers and sits at the 30' level and is hpol. Those two customers get around 4 megs down and up. The sector to the north east is vertical and a customer at 10ish miles gets .7 to 1.5 megs down and .25 to .5 up. The sector to the south east is hpol and sits at the 45 or 50' level. Customers get .6 to 1.5 down and .1 to .5 up. Unplug any two radios and speeds hit the 2 to 3 meg, sometimes 4 meg speed for all customers on that system. Plug the other one back in and speeds drop back down. The hpol maxrad antennas have a 30dB fb ratio. I've not yet looked at the patterns lately, as I recall they are pretty good though. APs are Teletronics 11-152s with metal cases. I've had GREAT luck with ALL of these components at other sites. Just never all at the same time and place like this. As most of you know, most of my coverage areas are VERY low density so I tend to use a lot of omni antennas, or am mounted on hills that have no coverage behind them so only one or two sectors are used. The two systems that interfere with each other the most are north east and south east. One's hpol one's vpol. They are on channel 1 and 9. To get things working MUCH better than they were before, I've replaced the north east and south east radios with Tranzeo ap's. I also moved the southeast antenna (actually put up a new one) back down to the roof of the shack. It's also a Tranzeo ap now. It, however, now sits in front of, though much lower than the west antenna, both are hpol though. If the channels are anywhere near the same for west and southeast the folks to the west get really slow speeds. I also moved the antennas on the tower further apart, they are now at least 5 or 6 feet apart from each other. I don't know how
Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference
Travis Johnson wrote: There are ways to do it without sync. I have over 120 Trango AP's (over 30 of them with omni antennas) all running perfectly. Some towers have as many as 4 AP's in the same band within 10ft of each other. The point of sync is that you don't generally have to think about where your AP's are located in relation to each other on the site unless you are re-using frequencies at the site. Many of my sites have 2 omni's within a few feet of each other, and on the same horizontal plane. We have one site which actually has two 120* sectors within 18 inches or so of each other, pointed in the same direction - and on adjacent freqencies (I.E. the Canopy equivalent of Trango's 5v and 6v). Without sync you have to think about things like separation and polarities and antenna patterns and so on to ensure that you get enough separation (frequency, distance, and/or polarization) between the AP's. Yes, you can do it. Yes, you can make it work. Yes, you can make it work well, but it's not easy. Just to clarify, the above is talking about synchronizing all radios at a specific site, not across your network. That's a whole different discussion. -forrest Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Tower hole size
How big a sst are you building? The two common methods are pier or pad pier Pier will almost always require a driller. Pad and Pier can allow you to excavate with a backhoe or track hoe, so it can be more do-it-yourself. But compacting it will requite a lot of work and dry soil conditions. The depth is dependant on soils analysis. Wind load, and tower design requirements. The manufacturer will typically provide this or you can try Hardy Engineering in Trussville, AL. The manufacturers do provide typical designs but know that the ultimate capacity of what you do in the air is directly related to what you bury. Good luck! Jim Bennett www.myRadioman.com 317-222-1329 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:32 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower hole size The engineering for tower mounting is available on the websites of most tower manufacturing and only costs $ if you want wet ink docs. This is no place for short cuts and I would suggest overbuilding your tower supporting base to a fault. Tracy Tippett [EMAIL PROTECTED] RickG wrote: Anyone know how big the hole should be for a self-supporting tower? Is there a guide or rule of thumb? Thanks! -RickG Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- Tracy Tippett Territorial Sales Manager Western US Canada Electro-Comm Distributing Inc. 303-917-2264 cell 866-582-7287 H-office 800-525-0173 ECD office [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ecommwireless.com www.shopecbiz.com Wireless data voice connectivity products are our only business! Our trained staff and friendly service, keep it simple, so you can concentrate on your business. Visit us soon either at our Denver headquarters or at one of the following industry events. Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCCCommissioner'stakeonBroadband..
Yes. It costs about the same labor to run anything and the material cost doesn't vary much either. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Doug Ratcliffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:04 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCCCommissioner'stakeonBroadband.. But if you're running fiber anyways, isn't the labor cost per mile the same with single fiber vs. say, 100 fibers in a single cable? Virtually limitless, I would think. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 7:19 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner'stakeonBroadband.. Fiber is definitely higher capacity than coax; you would be stupid to do a from-scratch coax buildout. The two main difficulties with coax infrastructure is 1. It's broadcast--meaning that's a shared capacity, and, technically speaking, everything that goes to one subscriber goes to all subscribers (kinda like wireless in a sense). 2. Slow return path. It's hard to do a large capacity on the return path simply because the equipment on the subscriber end usually is fairly low end and has a lot more noise to start out with. If you amp it up to get more power (and capacity) you increase the noise way to quickly. Not really too different from wireless in those ways, just has a lot more theoretical capacity Fiber doesn't have any of these problems (although a lot of FTTH implementations are vaguely broadcast-style as well), and the massive speeds we see out of fiber are only the beginning. Still, for the time being, cable MSOs are in good shape in terms of the actual physical cabling technology and aren't facing the hard physical limits of copper pair like the telcos. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 7/25/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Coax can do 50 gigabit? Fiber can do a heck of a lot more than that. A 32 channel DWDM system can currently do 320 gigs with 1280 gigs not far off. I have heard of systems doing more than 32 channels. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's takeonBroadband.. -- Forwarded message -- From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:40:19 -0400 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband.. I think you missed my point here. My point is that forcing telcos to resell their network layer does absolutely nothing to connect additional people. If I resell ATT DSL to someone on ATT's network, they could have just as easily gotten it from ATT. So you think that CLEC's and ISP's have never actually brought the Internet or a new service to anyone? That's striking. Yes the footprint does not grow, but certainly the penetration does. Back when the Internet was new, they were great for this because they generally had better customer relationships with the customers. These days, Internet is commodity--in almost every case, if they didn't get it from the ISP or CLEC, they would get it from the cable company or telco. And without the revenue from the rented network, how would anyone build new facilities? Revenue from the services sold on the network through retail options, as has always been the case... Dynamic T1 and Integrated T1 were CLEC inventions. VoIP didn't come to the masses from the ILEC's and neither did DSL or dial-up. CLEC style VoIP is not really all that interesting--in the end, it is all to often POTS over IP and leaves out much of what is potentially interesting on VoIP. Definitely, without the CLEC competition, Internet access would have evolved in a much different manner. However, I'm more arguing that the CLECs are more or less irrelevant today (from any sort of policy standpoint)--most of the market forces really do come down to telco/cable in the metro areas and wireless in rural markets. The CLECs were the forerunners in a lot of areas--but, by and large, their era of innovation is long over. I'm not saying that these aren't decent business models, btw, and can't make people some dough. But, national policy is not structured around making sure that an extra couple of CLECs or NSPs are cash positive... running the same old tired copper to the same old customers does not increase broadband penetration. National policy! HA! It's about Innovation and Competition. In which case, the CLECs only have themselves to blame :) Would we have DSL today if not for
RE: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner'stakeonBroadband..
But if you're running fiber anyways, isn't the labor cost per mile the same with single fiber vs. say, 100 fibers in a single cable? Virtually limitless, I would think. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 7:19 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner'stakeonBroadband.. Fiber is definitely higher capacity than coax; you would be stupid to do a from-scratch coax buildout. The two main difficulties with coax infrastructure is 1. It's broadcast--meaning that's a shared capacity, and, technically speaking, everything that goes to one subscriber goes to all subscribers (kinda like wireless in a sense). 2. Slow return path. It's hard to do a large capacity on the return path simply because the equipment on the subscriber end usually is fairly low end and has a lot more noise to start out with. If you amp it up to get more power (and capacity) you increase the noise way to quickly. Not really too different from wireless in those ways, just has a lot more theoretical capacity Fiber doesn't have any of these problems (although a lot of FTTH implementations are vaguely broadcast-style as well), and the massive speeds we see out of fiber are only the beginning. Still, for the time being, cable MSOs are in good shape in terms of the actual physical cabling technology and aren't facing the hard physical limits of copper pair like the telcos. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 7/25/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Coax can do 50 gigabit? Fiber can do a heck of a lot more than that. A 32 channel DWDM system can currently do 320 gigs with 1280 gigs not far off. I have heard of systems doing more than 32 channels. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's takeonBroadband.. -- Forwarded message -- From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:40:19 -0400 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband.. I think you missed my point here. My point is that forcing telcos to resell their network layer does absolutely nothing to connect additional people. If I resell ATT DSL to someone on ATT's network, they could have just as easily gotten it from ATT. So you think that CLEC's and ISP's have never actually brought the Internet or a new service to anyone? That's striking. Yes the footprint does not grow, but certainly the penetration does. Back when the Internet was new, they were great for this because they generally had better customer relationships with the customers. These days, Internet is commodity--in almost every case, if they didn't get it from the ISP or CLEC, they would get it from the cable company or telco. And without the revenue from the rented network, how would anyone build new facilities? Revenue from the services sold on the network through retail options, as has always been the case... Dynamic T1 and Integrated T1 were CLEC inventions. VoIP didn't come to the masses from the ILEC's and neither did DSL or dial-up. CLEC style VoIP is not really all that interesting--in the end, it is all to often POTS over IP and leaves out much of what is potentially interesting on VoIP. Definitely, without the CLEC competition, Internet access would have evolved in a much different manner. However, I'm more arguing that the CLECs are more or less irrelevant today (from any sort of policy standpoint)--most of the market forces really do come down to telco/cable in the metro areas and wireless in rural markets. The CLECs were the forerunners in a lot of areas--but, by and large, their era of innovation is long over. I'm not saying that these aren't decent business models, btw, and can't make people some dough. But, national policy is not structured around making sure that an extra couple of CLECs or NSPs are cash positive... running the same old tired copper to the same old customers does not increase broadband penetration. National policy! HA! It's about Innovation and Competition. In which case, the CLECs only have themselves to blame :) Would we have DSL today if not for Covad/Northpoint/Rhythms? DSL was invented in Bell Labs in 1965! RBOC's did not want to cannibalize their $1500 T1 revenue. (Then they went the exact opposite way). Agreed...but that was 1998-2002. What have they done for us lately? Does it hurt the ILEC? Heh...probably not all that much. But, are CLECs really helping the
Re: [WISPA] Tower hole size
The engineering for tower mounting is available on the websites of most tower manufacturing and only costs $ if you want wet ink docs. This is no place for short cuts and I would suggest overbuilding your tower supporting base to a fault. Tracy Tippett [EMAIL PROTECTED] RickG wrote: Anyone know how big the hole should be for a self-supporting tower? Is there a guide or rule of thumb? Thanks! -RickG Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- Tracy Tippett Territorial Sales Manager Western US Canada Electro-Comm Distributing Inc. 303-917-2264 cell 866-582-7287 H-office 800-525-0173 ECD office [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ecommwireless.com www.shopecbiz.com Wireless data voice connectivity products are our only business! Our trained staff and friendly service, keep it simple, so you can concentrate on your business. Visit us soon either at our Denver headquarters or at one of the following industry events. Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Verizon Changes Course, Supports Open-Access Plan
Verizon Changes Course, Supports Open-Access Plan By Kim Hart Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, July 26, 2007; D08 In a last-minute policy shift, Verizon Wireless said yesterday that it would support a plan requiring a portion of airwaves to be available to any wireless device. But the company that builds the network on those airwaves, Verizon said, shouldn't have to guarantee that all applications, such as games and videos, will work properly. Verizon has firmly opposed a proposal put forth by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin that would require that a large swath of airwaves, to be auctioned in January, be used to build a network open to any wireless device or service. Currently, wireless carriers control the handsets and features available to consumers. Google and other Internet companies have argued that opening the network to all devices would benefit consumers and allow a new entrant into the wireless market. But Verizon has said such a requirement would hurt traditional wireless carriers, which want to buy the spectrum to roll out services on their networks. A majority of FCC commissioners told a House telecommunications subcommittee Tuesday that they supported the open access requirement. With an FCC vote on the auction's rules scheduled for Tuesday, Verizon said it will consider allowing any device to access its network. But, it said yesterday in a statement, it would guarantee only services bought directly from Verizon. Last week, ATT also said it supported Martin's open-access proposal. Google said it would consider bidding at least $4.6 billion for the airwaves but only if the FCC also mandates that the auction winner be required to resell some of the bandwidth to other companies. Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] self inflicted interference
What you need is Canopy Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:01 AM To: WISPA General List Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference two different netgear switches. Using my laptop at the tower things always work as expected. Just when the customers are further away (lower signal levels) causes the problems. I've moved things further apart and the system is running better than it ever has. But it should still be better.. What I need are better radios. Something with better oob tx and rx stats. marlon - Original Message - From: D. Ryan Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 5:13 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference Marlon, How are these APs hooked to each other? If you are using a hub, get a switch. If it is a switch, get a different switch. I have had this happen on 3 of my repeater sites. ryan On Jul 24, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Hi All, I just completely rebuilt a tower site. It had inconsistent speeds and I'd hit the point that I normally change things around. When I hit 50 people to a tower I'll sectorize it. On this tower I had an omni at about 25' (the hill is 700 feet over the valley) and a 15dB integrated Tranzeo ap at about 15'. Omni was vertical, sector was horizontal. I rented a manlift and put an hpol maxrad wisp series 120* adjustable beam sector at about 45', a vertical at 37ish and another horizontal at about 30. All antennas are also 6 to 8' horizontally separated. Each on a standoff attached to the different legs of the tower. All antennas are fed with lmr600 and the radios are right beside each other at the base of the tower (I'm too chicken to climb so the radios stay where I can get to them). Here's my problem, with all of the radios on and transmitting the speeds are worse than before for most customers. The sector to the west has 2 customers and sits at the 30' level and is hpol. Those two customers get around 4 megs down and up. The sector to the north east is vertical and a customer at 10ish miles gets .7 to 1.5 megs down and .25 to .5 up. The sector to the south east is hpol and sits at the 45 or 50' level. Customers get .6 to 1.5 down and .1 to .5 up. Unplug any two radios and speeds hit the 2 to 3 meg, sometimes 4 meg speed for all customers on that system. Plug the other one back in and speeds drop back down. The hpol maxrad antennas have a 30dB fb ratio. I've not yet looked at the patterns lately, as I recall they are pretty good though. APs are Teletronics 11-152s with metal cases. I've had GREAT luck with ALL of these components at other sites. Just never all at the same time and place like this. As most of you know, most of my coverage areas are VERY low density so I tend to use a lot of omni antennas, or am mounted on hills that have no coverage behind them so only one or two sectors are used. The two systems that interfere with each other the most are north east and south east. One's hpol one's vpol. They are on channel 1 and 9. To get things working MUCH better than they were before, I've replaced the north east and south east radios with Tranzeo ap's. I also moved the southeast antenna (actually put up a new one) back down to the roof of the shack. It's also a Tranzeo ap now. It, however, now sits in front of, though much lower than the west antenna, both are hpol though. If the channels are anywhere near the same for west and southeast the folks to the west get really slow speeds. I also moved the antennas on the tower further apart, they are now at least 5 or 6 feet apart from each other. I don't know how much that helped as I changed one of the radios to a Tranzeo at that same time. This helped but didn't fix the speed and consistency problem. That's when I moved the south east system back down where I could more easily get to it. Things still aren't as consistent as they need to be. If one system gets busy the others slow down. Any ideas? My first thought is to try a REALLY high end access point or two. You'd think those systems could sit side beside when using channels so far apart from each other. It's like the new radios are soo sensitive that they will pick up the noise close to them no matter what. OR, more likely, that the new, cheaper, gear has really really sensitive radios but with rotten side band isolation on both tx and rx. Any ideas? Radios/antennas to try? Changing the radios is easy. Getting a manlift back out to change the antennas will suck big time (due to the stand offs it would be too
Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's takeonBroadband..
Fiber is definitely higher capacity than coax; you would be stupid to do a from-scratch coax buildout. The two main difficulties with coax infrastructure is 1. It's broadcast--meaning that's a shared capacity, and, technically speaking, everything that goes to one subscriber goes to all subscribers (kinda like wireless in a sense). 2. Slow return path. It's hard to do a large capacity on the return path simply because the equipment on the subscriber end usually is fairly low end and has a lot more noise to start out with. If you amp it up to get more power (and capacity) you increase the noise way to quickly. Not really too different from wireless in those ways, just has a lot more theoretical capacity Fiber doesn't have any of these problems (although a lot of FTTH implementations are vaguely broadcast-style as well), and the massive speeds we see out of fiber are only the beginning. Still, for the time being, cable MSOs are in good shape in terms of the actual physical cabling technology and aren't facing the hard physical limits of copper pair like the telcos. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 7/25/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Coax can do 50 gigabit? Fiber can do a heck of a lot more than that. A 32 channel DWDM system can currently do 320 gigs with 1280 gigs not far off. I have heard of systems doing more than 32 channels. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's takeonBroadband.. -- Forwarded message -- From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:40:19 -0400 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband.. I think you missed my point here. My point is that forcing telcos to resell their network layer does absolutely nothing to connect additional people. If I resell ATT DSL to someone on ATT's network, they could have just as easily gotten it from ATT. So you think that CLEC's and ISP's have never actually brought the Internet or a new service to anyone? That's striking. Yes the footprint does not grow, but certainly the penetration does. Back when the Internet was new, they were great for this because they generally had better customer relationships with the customers. These days, Internet is commodity--in almost every case, if they didn't get it from the ISP or CLEC, they would get it from the cable company or telco. And without the revenue from the rented network, how would anyone build new facilities? Revenue from the services sold on the network through retail options, as has always been the case... Dynamic T1 and Integrated T1 were CLEC inventions. VoIP didn't come to the masses from the ILEC's and neither did DSL or dial-up. CLEC style VoIP is not really all that interesting--in the end, it is all to often POTS over IP and leaves out much of what is potentially interesting on VoIP. Definitely, without the CLEC competition, Internet access would have evolved in a much different manner. However, I'm more arguing that the CLECs are more or less irrelevant today (from any sort of policy standpoint)--most of the market forces really do come down to telco/cable in the metro areas and wireless in rural markets. The CLECs were the forerunners in a lot of areas--but, by and large, their era of innovation is long over. I'm not saying that these aren't decent business models, btw, and can't make people some dough. But, national policy is not structured around making sure that an extra couple of CLECs or NSPs are cash positive... running the same old tired copper to the same old customers does not increase broadband penetration. National policy! HA! It's about Innovation and Competition. In which case, the CLECs only have themselves to blame :) Would we have DSL today if not for Covad/Northpoint/Rhythms? DSL was invented in Bell Labs in 1965! RBOC's did not want to cannibalize their $1500 T1 revenue. (Then they went the exact opposite way). Agreed...but that was 1998-2002. What have they done for us lately? Does it hurt the ILEC? Heh...probably not all that much. But, are CLECs really helping the consumer? I tend to argue no, by and large...why IS CLEC market share so small? Why are independent ISPs have so little market share? Clint, I could spend days on this. For you even to ask this, . it almost feels like you are trolling (or do I hear the clinking of ice?) I'm honestly not trolling here, although, given the forum, it definitely comes across that way. Definitely, back in the 1990's and early 2000's, CLECs drove costs down and drove in new services that Bell had little
[WISPA] Google Sprint Working on WiMax project
Though we live in a world where wireless and walled garden seem to go hand in hand, Sprint announced today that it will partner with open-access booster Google Inc. to create a mobile WiMAX portal for search, interactive communications, user-generated content and social networking. The carrier also said it will provide open standard APIs for the Internet developer community to create customized, personalized and interactive services for customers. Sprint has been saying for months that its WiMAX-based 4G service will be about taking the open Internet mobile — rather than offer a content-limited experience with one of those difficult, graphics-deficient interfaces that have become synonymous with “mobile Internet.” Taking a step toward fulfilling that promise, Sprint said that its network bandwidth, location detection and presence capabilities will be matched with Google’s communications suite, Google Apps, which combines the Gmail, Google Calendar and Google Talk services. Other WiMAX applications will include high speed Internet browsing, local and location-centric services, and multimedia services including music, video, TV and on-demand products. rest of article here: http://www.phoneplusmag.com/hotnews/77h2611244.html Thank you. Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - Telecom Specialist 813.963.5884 fax 866.575.9446 http://www.rad-info.net Read my blog at Phone+: http://www.phoneplusmag.com/blogs/peertopeer/ Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference
There are ways to do it without sync. I have over 120 Trango AP's (over 30 of them with omni antennas) all running perfectly. Some towers have as many as 4 AP's in the same band within 10ft of each other. Travis Microserv Forrest W Christian wrote: Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Hmmm. Would you want to change out 60ish customers? Been there done that. Swapping out ~15 2.4Ghz 802.11b customers over the next two days to canopy. We swapped around 75 Trango customers when we first turned Canopy up. We've probably got around 100 802.11b's left on the net (30ish each on 3-4 Ap's) and they're slowly getting changed. Will canopy go 17+ miles? Yep... Trimmed to just show the relevant information: *LUID: 014* : MAC: 0a-00-3e-23-24-c0 http://172.19.74.67:1080/?mac_esn=0a003e2324c0 State: IN SESSION (Encrypt Active) Session Timeout: 0, AirDelay 2258 (approximately 20.95 miles (110642 feet)) Session Count: 2, Reg Count 1, Re-Reg Count 1 RSSI (Avg/Last): 810/817 Jitter (Avg/Last): 4/4 Power Level (Avg/Last): -76/-76 *LUID: 058* : MAC: 0a-00-3e-23-02-aa http://172.19.74.67:1080/?mac_esn=0a003e2302aa State: IN SESSION (Encrypt Active) Session Timeout: 0, AirDelay 2532 (approximately 23.50 miles (124068 feet)) Session Count: 3, Reg Count 2, Re-Reg Count 2 RSSI (Avg/Last): 903/905 Jitter (Avg/Last): 3/4 Power Level (Avg/Last): -69/-69 *LUID: 064* : MAC: 0a-00-3e-20-c4-07 http://172.19.74.67:1080/?mac_esn=0a003e20c407 State: IN SESSION (Encrypt Active) Session Timeout: 0, AirDelay 2552 (approximately 23.68 miles (125048 feet)) Session Count: 4, Reg Count 3, Re-Reg Count 1 RSSI (Avg/Last): 814/805 Jitter (Avg/Last): 4/3 Power Level (Avg/Last): -76/-76 Uptime on this particular AP is 24 days... to interpret the Session counts accordingly. I suspect the session counts shown are customer power-related issues during that period (lightning season) and not necessarily RF related. (RF problems generally cause a lot of Re-Regs). Will canopy NOT interfere with all of the other systems in the area? No more than any other loaded system will interfere. We have had 802.11b and 2.4 Canopy AP's on the same tower for weeks at a time during swap periods with very few problems - no more than you'd expect from having two collocated AP's. Most of the complaints people have with the Canopy stuff interfering with them is more related to poor RF engineering on the interferred with system (links running right at the edge, and the added ambient noise of another operator knocks them off the air). Properly engineered systems will generally survive a canopy deployment in the area. That said, Canopy will generally be the last man standing as noise goes up, which makes them look bad since the assumption is that since the Canopy system isn't being interfered with that it must be the cause. I used to believe that canopy was bad and evil but then finally had enough of trying to make 802.11b (and trango) work and then switched to Canopy. I'm not looking back. What I need to find are wifi radios that have good rx and tx properties. I also need to find some better hpol sectors. I'm not sure if my previous email made it to the list which stated what you need is a radio with transmit synchronization - and then mentioning Canopy and WiMax. I also understand that Mikrotik and others are working on synchronizing 802.11bg in some way as well. A large problem with multiple-AP sites is that AP #1 transmitting kills the sensitivity of AP#2's receiver and so you spend a lot of time and effort trying to get enough separation (polarity and/or distance). TX synchronization fixes that particular issue. Cellular does it, Canopy does it, WiMax supports it, Trango claims they are going to support it, etc. -forrest Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Marina Cams
http://www.ipvisionsoftware.com/ the link you posted doesn't work without the www. ;-) Zack On 7/25/07, Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Smith, Rick wrote: Anyone done cameras at a marina where they've sold access to the slip owners ? How do ya handle multiple people wanting to see the same camera ? Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. Network DVR allows multiple access. Lots of camera manufacturers out there. Works well - at least for the one client that is doing it. Look at ipvisionsoftware.com -- Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Streaming Video
Does anyone here have a list of the equipment to do streaming video? I may have an opportunity to setup some cameras for a local event and stream it to the web. We will want to be able to charge for access and to archive the feeds. Any suggestions? -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCCCommissioner'stakeonBroadband..
Yeah, the cost isn't that much higher for the fiber... Still, typical FTTH deployment uses a network architecture known as PON (Passive Optical Network). The wikipedia article on the matter is fairly accurate, for the interested ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_optical_network) PON is basically a broadcast-style design that is not too different than a cable HFC plant architecture; the same data gets sent to all connected units by being split out optically at the neighborhood. PON does save a significant amount of money; lower fiber costs just being one. Good fiber equipment (for terminating fiber) is quite expensive still. Management/maintenance is the other. The main disadvantage (long-term) is the upstream capacity The alternative designs would run as follows: 1. Each customer has a unique fiber run all the way back to the head end / co. This is complicated for a lot of reasons (in terms of line maintenance), becomes cost proh. quite quickly just on the fiber (it's not _that_ cheap, even if it's not very expensive). The biggest problem is that you have to have a the optical equipment on each end that can cover the entire span for each customer; this gets quite expensive, of course. 2. Build a single run out to the neighborhood / whatever and then have an actual router / switch split out from there. This isn't really much more expensive, but does require a lot more management and more stuff that can fail. This is, however, often done for commercial customers in MTUs. Doesn't really make sense for resi or small business environment. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 7/26/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. It costs about the same labor to run anything and the material cost doesn't vary much either. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Doug Ratcliffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:04 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCCCommissioner'stakeonBroadband.. But if you're running fiber anyways, isn't the labor cost per mile the same with single fiber vs. say, 100 fibers in a single cable? Virtually limitless, I would think. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 7:19 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner'stakeonBroadband.. Fiber is definitely higher capacity than coax; you would be stupid to do a from-scratch coax buildout. The two main difficulties with coax infrastructure is 1. It's broadcast--meaning that's a shared capacity, and, technically speaking, everything that goes to one subscriber goes to all subscribers (kinda like wireless in a sense). 2. Slow return path. It's hard to do a large capacity on the return path simply because the equipment on the subscriber end usually is fairly low end and has a lot more noise to start out with. If you amp it up to get more power (and capacity) you increase the noise way to quickly. Not really too different from wireless in those ways, just has a lot more theoretical capacity Fiber doesn't have any of these problems (although a lot of FTTH implementations are vaguely broadcast-style as well), and the massive speeds we see out of fiber are only the beginning. Still, for the time being, cable MSOs are in good shape in terms of the actual physical cabling technology and aren't facing the hard physical limits of copper pair like the telcos. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 7/25/07, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Coax can do 50 gigabit? Fiber can do a heck of a lot more than that. A 32 channel DWDM system can currently do 320 gigs with 1280 gigs not far off. I have heard of systems doing more than 32 channels. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's takeonBroadband.. -- Forwarded message -- From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:40:19 -0400 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take onBroadband.. I think you missed my point here. My point is that forcing telcos to resell their network layer does absolutely nothing to connect additional people. If I resell ATT DSL to someone on ATT's network, they could have just as easily gotten it from ATT. So you think that CLEC's and ISP's have never actually brought the Internet or a new service to anyone? That's striking. Yes the footprint does not grow, but certainly the penetration does. Back when
Re: [WISPA] self inflicted interference
Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Hmmm. Would you want to change out 60ish customers? Been there done that. Swapping out ~15 2.4Ghz 802.11b customers over the next two days to canopy. We swapped around 75 Trango customers when we first turned Canopy up. We've probably got around 100 802.11b's left on the net (30ish each on 3-4 Ap's) and they're slowly getting changed. Will canopy go 17+ miles? Yep... Trimmed to just show the relevant information: *LUID: 014* : MAC: 0a-00-3e-23-24-c0 http://172.19.74.67:1080/?mac_esn=0a003e2324c0 State: IN SESSION (Encrypt Active) Session Timeout: 0, AirDelay 2258 (approximately 20.95 miles (110642 feet)) Session Count: 2, Reg Count 1, Re-Reg Count 1 RSSI (Avg/Last): 810/817 Jitter (Avg/Last): 4/4 Power Level (Avg/Last): -76/-76 *LUID: 058* : MAC: 0a-00-3e-23-02-aa http://172.19.74.67:1080/?mac_esn=0a003e2302aa State: IN SESSION (Encrypt Active) Session Timeout: 0, AirDelay 2532 (approximately 23.50 miles (124068 feet)) Session Count: 3, Reg Count 2, Re-Reg Count 2 RSSI (Avg/Last): 903/905 Jitter (Avg/Last): 3/4 Power Level (Avg/Last): -69/-69 *LUID: 064* : MAC: 0a-00-3e-20-c4-07 http://172.19.74.67:1080/?mac_esn=0a003e20c407 State: IN SESSION (Encrypt Active) Session Timeout: 0, AirDelay 2552 (approximately 23.68 miles (125048 feet)) Session Count: 4, Reg Count 3, Re-Reg Count 1 RSSI (Avg/Last): 814/805 Jitter (Avg/Last): 4/3 Power Level (Avg/Last): -76/-76 Uptime on this particular AP is 24 days... to interpret the Session counts accordingly. I suspect the session counts shown are customer power-related issues during that period (lightning season) and not necessarily RF related. (RF problems generally cause a lot of Re-Regs). Will canopy NOT interfere with all of the other systems in the area? No more than any other loaded system will interfere. We have had 802.11b and 2.4 Canopy AP's on the same tower for weeks at a time during swap periods with very few problems - no more than you'd expect from having two collocated AP's. Most of the complaints people have with the Canopy stuff interfering with them is more related to poor RF engineering on the interferred with system (links running right at the edge, and the added ambient noise of another operator knocks them off the air). Properly engineered systems will generally survive a canopy deployment in the area. That said, Canopy will generally be the last man standing as noise goes up, which makes them look bad since the assumption is that since the Canopy system isn't being interfered with that it must be the cause. I used to believe that canopy was bad and evil but then finally had enough of trying to make 802.11b (and trango) work and then switched to Canopy. I'm not looking back. What I need to find are wifi radios that have good rx and tx properties. I also need to find some better hpol sectors. I'm not sure if my previous email made it to the list which stated what you need is a radio with transmit synchronization - and then mentioning Canopy and WiMax. I also understand that Mikrotik and others are working on synchronizing 802.11bg in some way as well. A large problem with multiple-AP sites is that AP #1 transmitting kills the sensitivity of AP#2's receiver and so you spend a lot of time and effort trying to get enough separation (polarity and/or distance). TX synchronization fixes that particular issue. Cellular does it, Canopy does it, WiMax supports it, Trango claims they are going to support it, etc. -forrest Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FBI Proposes Building Network of U.S. Informants
Thanks for the popups Matt.. lol Heres a better link http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/whosarat/vpost?id=552867 On 7/25/07, Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snitch.net ??? Matt Larsen Vistabeam.com Jack Unger wrote: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/07/fbi-proposes-bu.html Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
