Re: [WISPA] RouterBoard 112
Blair Davis wrote: Anyone happen to know the Power Supply voltage for the old RouterBoard 112? Just got some of them and I can't find it on the RouterBoard ste Thanks. Thanks all. So, now I've got them powered up, but the neighbor discovery in winbox doesn't find them. So now I'm looking for the default IP for them... Thanks again... WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] RouterBoard 112
There is no default IP. You can use a null modem cable to plug into the serial port. Use Hyperterminal or putty to get into it. set the bit rate to 115200 and you should be able to put an IP on it from the command line. /ip address add address=x.x.x.x/x interface=ether1 If your having trouble with winbox make sure you have the latest version. You can get it from MT website. Be sure windows firewall is off and all other interfaces are disabled in your connection properties. Jim 314-565-6863 Blair Davis wrote: Blair Davis wrote: Anyone happen to know the Power Supply voltage for the old RouterBoard 112? Just got some of them and I can't find it on the RouterBoard ste Thanks. Thanks all. So, now I've got them powered up, but the neighbor discovery in winbox doesn't find them. So now I'm looking for the default IP for them... Thanks again... WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] help! replacement MT based 5.8G system connects, but no ping!
I've had this problem before when I set the interface on the AP to a certain type. I believe I had to set it to AP Bridge or AP by itself in configuring a point-to-point. Mark Nash UnwiredWest 78 Centennial Loop Suite E Eugene, OR 97401 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax http://www.unwiredwest.com - Original Message - From: rabbtux rabbtux [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 9:01 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] help! replacement MT based 5.8G system connects,but no ping! On the AP side (producion system for year), it shows this test rb133 registered with rx 1M and tx to it of 6M. Its like the rb133 system refuses to transmit at any rate above 1M?? Still, no ping between the two. On 7/1/08, rabbtux rabbtux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: no WDS and no Bridging involved. Using MT ping utility from either end. I have swapped out CM9 radios and gone to a 'clean' rb133 with the same ros2.9.50 as the AP. I moved the client closer and noticed one ODD thing. With -72db on both sides or even with -62db, the Registered rate is always 1M? yes, this is 802.11a, yes the radios are set to 5.8G. The 'default' rates are selected for radios on each end. Any ideas?? On 7/1/08, Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Kill all encryption on both ends, get them to pass traffic and then proceed with enabling encryption. 2. be sure you have WDS in the bridge or have both sides set to dynamic bridge1 (or whatever it is) 3. Be sure of your gateway on both sides (this is generally the easiest to jack up) Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of rabbtux rabbtux Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 7:50 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] help! replacement MT based 5.8G system connects, but no ping! IP address on singel CM9 radio interface. Just Swapped out the pre configured RB333 system with a clean RB133 and freshly configured to the other AP. Still, it associates with encryption key, but no ping! (hope I still have hair by morning :-) On 7/1/08, Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are the IP addresses on a bridge or an Interface? Mark Nash UnwiredWest 78 Centennial Loop Suite E Eugene, OR 97401 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax http://www.unwiredwest.com - Original Message - From: rabbtux rabbtux [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 5:18 PM Subject: [WISPA] help! replacement MT based 5.8G system connects,but no ping! All, I'm at wits end as my network is crippled and I'm having problems getting the replacement system to talk. Both systems have the correct security key, as they will not register to each other correctly without it. The new system is ros3.9 and it is PTP with another ros2.9.50 system. These two systems connect with 65dbm signal strength but I can't ping from either end. I, of course double/triple checked interface IPs and masks. I have used MT for about a year and a half, without issue, however, I'm probably missing something here as I work with looming customer calls about when will the replacement system be up! Anyway, It would be great to speak to someone with more MT experience than myself on this one! Please hit me off list for details. Thank you kindly, Marshall Craw Rabbit Meadows Tech. --- - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/
Re: [WISPA] help! replacement MT based 5.8G system connects, but no ping!
Solved: Help replacement MT ... no ping Many thanks to all who tossed out suggestions! The situation: Had a 5.8G backhaul link with MT-CM9 on one end, and old pebble linux system on the other. Rebooted the pebble system yesterday afternoon and its AP radio was no longer detected, thus creating the urgency for my 'ready to go' replacement MT based system. I had the replacement system Associate and saw excellent signal strength. No ping from MT to MT system? When I disabled the encryption on the new system, there was no association, so I assumed the encryption was good. Another odd thing. The new system would only associate at 1M, even when I moved things closer together. 1M and -60db signal strength is very odd. Solution: Apparently when I entered the static Key in the security profiles, I missed the box on the left, for the type of key. It was of type none instead of 40-bit wep, 104-bit wep, or AES. I'm not sure if the 'none' key is defined in 802.11a or not, but it was strange 'almost' working behavior, and my internal pressure caused this solution to take 8 hours time, rebuilding systems, swapping radios etc. Again, Thanks everyone! Marshall On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've had this problem before when I set the interface on the AP to a certain type. I believe I had to set it to AP Bridge or AP by itself in configuring a point-to-point. Mark Nash UnwiredWest 78 Centennial Loop Suite E Eugene, OR 97401 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax http://www.unwiredwest.com - Original Message - From: rabbtux rabbtux [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 9:01 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] help! replacement MT based 5.8G system connects,but no ping! On the AP side (producion system for year), it shows this test rb133 registered with rx 1M and tx to it of 6M. Its like the rb133 system refuses to transmit at any rate above 1M?? Still, no ping between the two. On 7/1/08, rabbtux rabbtux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: no WDS and no Bridging involved. Using MT ping utility from either end. I have swapped out CM9 radios and gone to a 'clean' rb133 with the same ros2.9.50 as the AP. I moved the client closer and noticed one ODD thing. With -72db on both sides or even with -62db, the Registered rate is always 1M? yes, this is 802.11a, yes the radios are set to 5.8G. The 'default' rates are selected for radios on each end. Any ideas?? On 7/1/08, Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Kill all encryption on both ends, get them to pass traffic and then proceed with enabling encryption. 2. be sure you have WDS in the bridge or have both sides set to dynamic bridge1 (or whatever it is) 3. Be sure of your gateway on both sides (this is generally the easiest to jack up) Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of rabbtux rabbtux Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 7:50 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] help! replacement MT based 5.8G system connects, but no ping! IP address on singel CM9 radio interface. Just Swapped out the pre configured RB333 system with a clean RB133 and freshly configured to the other AP. Still, it associates with encryption key, but no ping! (hope I still have hair by morning :-) On 7/1/08, Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are the IP addresses on a bridge or an Interface? Mark Nash UnwiredWest 78 Centennial Loop Suite E Eugene, OR 97401 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax http://www.unwiredwest.com - Original Message - From: rabbtux rabbtux [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 5:18 PM Subject: [WISPA] help! replacement MT based 5.8G system connects,but no ping! All, I'm at wits end as my network is crippled and I'm having problems getting the replacement system to talk. Both systems have the correct security key, as they will not register to each other correctly without it. The new system is ros3.9 and it is PTP with another ros2.9.50 system. These two systems connect with 65dbm signal strength but I can't ping from either end. I, of course double/triple checked interface IPs and masks. I have used MT for about a year and a half, without issue, however, I'm probably missing something here as I work with looming customer calls about when will the replacement system be up! Anyway, It would be great to speak to someone with more MT experience than myself on this one! Please hit me off list for details. Thank you kindly,
Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP
I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, any frequency that is tied to a particular standard by regulation will do nothing but stifle innovation in that band. -Hal -Original Message- From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:14:48 -0500 I would like to see WiMax approved for the entire 50 MHz and do away with the contention mechanism requirement for the upper 25 MHz as required under the rules. I know this is a flip-flop of position from our earlier position but frankly I see this as a god opportunity for WISPs to move up to the next level of reliability and scale. Many people are building in WiMax with success in the 3.5 to 3.8 GHz bands across the world. If WiMax were the standard for the 3650 band across 50 MHz then carriers could easily work together to band plan and move away from interference. With GPS sync the bands can be reused multiple times anyway. Sticking with one standard in this band just makes sense for us. It can be a WISP band if we do this. Spanking more out of 802.11 is old news and needs to be put to bed. It is time to use a real platform for scalable and reliable outdoor wireless broadband. WiMax is the path to this in 3.65 GHz. 802.22 will be the standard in the TV whitespaces (hopefully). It is time for us to standardize and use something better than repurposed WiFi. Scriv On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The energy level for backoff CAN be adjusted. The FCC says that NEITHER is acceptable, and even though the atheros mechanism is just an energy detection, it will not be allowed. This is what I gathered from an assortment of emails on the topic, some of which were from the FCC to someone wanting certification. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Harold Bledsoe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 4:52 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP The RF energy detection mechanism of 802.11a is sort of based on power level. If the preamble is detected and decoded, then the mechanism is activated at -82dBm. Otherwise it requires a relatively high energy level (-62dBm). Although I agree that even -62dBm seems fair. It would be very useful to know what part of the CCA mechanism of 802.11a does not work for the FCC's contention requirement. If it is not the detection mechanism, then perhaps it is the backoff mechanism? -Hal -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 01:23:31 -0700 That's nice, but in real life the FCC has simply gotten on a tear and decided that NOTHING qualifies for what they want. I have no idea what the purpose of this rather odd bit of nonsense is about, but when it declares that 802.11 does not detect dissimilar systems, then nothing can EVER be made to work. After all, the whole listen before talk is AN RF ENERGY DETECTOR.If that doesn't work, nothing can. Or, only that device or mechanism the person passing judgement wants to promote will work. We would spectulate who has bought this favor from the FCC, but in reality, it doesn't matter. I predict NO equipment will be certified for the rest of the spectrum and it will be auctioned for big bucks to some large entity. We'll still be in the same boat 2 years from now, with statements about we're watching the development of insert technology du jour here with interest. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 4:28 PM Subject: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP Update from the FCC. This makes is very clear to me what the FCC is looking for, if there are any questions or comments feel free. Sincerely, Tony Morella Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider Office: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008 http://www.demarctech.com Tony: Thank you for your inquiry. In the email you mentioned that several companies have obtained equipment authorization for operation in the lower 25 MHz of the 3650-3700 MHz band. This is correct. In the Commission's evaluation these devices met the requirements for restricted contention based protocol operation. Thus all of these devices support contention based protocol, but they only support that for similar types of systems. They do not provide for recognizing and coexistence with other dissimilar systems. In order to obtain the authorization for the full 50 MHz operation the system has to demonstrate
Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP
I hope all of you will read this post. I have spent a long time writing it and I think it is very important for us to all think about the issues involved. How about if we tie the 3.65 GHz band to one technology with our wallets instead of making Uncle Sam do it with regulation? We will see which platforms dominate over the next 5 years in wireless broadband. We are going to see some movement away from 802.11 based systems as a platform for delivery of outdoor broadband in all bands in my opinion. I think we will see a move toward licensed WiMax and LTE systems used predominantly for wireless broadband delivery as the next few years progress. I have little doubt that other platforms will be put to use but innovation will not occur from multiple platform distractions away from the goal of building efficient, cost effective and unified systems for outdoor wireless broadband. Do you think mixing several unrelated technologies into he same band is a good idea? I believe that we need to be using ONE platform in 3.65 and we need to all support it. Fragmentation of support, vendors, operators, etc. does not help our collective efforts. We need to decide on a platform and all of us need to use it if we are ever going to make headway as a group. The rest of the world is building WiMax in 3.4 thru 3.8 GHz. I just cannot see why we have to reinvent the wheel here. I assure you that if we all built on this platform that we could get the regulations changed to allow for WiMax use across the entire 50 MHz of this band. With GPS sync and 6 non-overlapping channels we could certainly avoid interference and deliver quality wireless broadband in 3.65 GHz. How does our industry standardizing on a platform like WiMax in 3.65 GHz stifle innovation? I think it does the opposite. I think it provides focus and clarity and economies of scale for a platform designed to provide outdoor wireless broadband. It is our best shot at building interconnected networks with scale and an exit strategy for operators, many having been running wireless broadband networks for over a decade. We are not getting any younger and someday we need to have something that someone will want to buy. I have given much thought to this. I am sure some will doubt what I am saying but I feel very strongly that we need to be setting a standard and supporting it as a group. If we cannot mass our buying power collectively toward a common platform VERY soon then we will not have to worry about it much longer because deeper pockets will do it for us. By most all accounts Telecoms with DSL and CableCos with DOCSIS have flourished by choosing industry standards for their broadband platforms and using it. They all support these same standards. I remember the early days of cable modems when there were 50 proprietary standards. Innovation came when the cable companies and their vendors banded together and built the DOCSIS standard and they all agreed to support it. That is innovation, focus, and efficiency. Why can't we do the same thing and learn from others who have succeeded? How can we achieve economies of scale with several different incompatible systems? I think we better wise up in 3.65 before we end up with an inefficiently used band with little chance of reuse (no GPS sync in 802.11x). All of us need to choose a platform which is designed to provide outdoor broadband efficiently and effectively. WiMax was built to fill this need and we need to start supporting it or face diminishing returns as the billions of dollars from others globally build over us. It is time for us to wake up and smell the coffee. The change is in the air and you need to be aware of it. The rest of the world is building WiMax networks to deliver wireless broadband. How long do we need to wait to see that this is not a fad? This is not just another option. It is how wireless broadband is going to be delivered in the 3.4 thru 3.8 GHz bands globally. Indeed it is how it is being done already. We are just late to the party. Do you think several non-cooperative systems (some of which are not even designed for outdoor wireless) are better than choosing a good standard and all of us supporting it? I am not trying to start a holy war here or anything. I just want to know why many in this group seem to have a preference for 802.11 based systems over systems designed to work better in outdoor environments as we have seen with 802.16 and 802.22, or even other proprietary systems like Canopy for instance? What is the love affair with 802.11? I don't get it. It is not designed for this purpose and yet many here seem to prefer it to systems built from the ground up to do outdoor broadband wireless. What is so bad about picking a good standard and all of us trying to support it instead of having 50 different systems all acting as little islands of users and support? WISPs better get together and make use of this golden opportunity in 3.65 GHz. It is as close to a WISP band as we will likely ever
[WISPA] Spam from ligowave?
Today i got an email from [EMAIL PROTECTED], i am fairly certain i did not give them my address at any point. I suspect it may have been harvested from the list, has anyone else seen a message from them today? Ryan WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Spam from ligowave?
We don't harvest from any mailing lists. I will contact you offlist. :) -Original Message- From: Ryan Langseth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Spam from ligowave? Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 15:47:46 -0500 Today i got an email from [EMAIL PROTECTED], i am fairly certain i did not give them my address at any point. I suspect it may have been harvested from the list, has anyone else seen a message from them today? Ryan WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Spam from ligowave?
List harvesting = bad ju ju! -- * Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services* 314-735-0270 http://www.linktechs.net http://www.linktechs.net/ */ Link Technologies, Inc is offering LIVE Mikrotik On-Line Training http://www.linktechs.net/onlinetraining.asp/* Harold Bledsoe wrote: We don't harvest from any mailing lists. I will contact you offlist. :) -Original Message- From: Ryan Langseth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Spam from ligowave? Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 15:47:46 -0500 Today i got an email from [EMAIL PROTECTED], i am fairly certain i did not give them my address at any point. I suspect it may have been harvested from the list, has anyone else seen a message from them today? Ryan WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP
$10k for a single AP is why. I can outfit two whole towers with MTI sector antennas for the price of 1 WiMAX radio. Gross throughput. My Mikrotik can do 35 megs of throughput vs. 20 (albeit a larger channel). I want to use WiMAX as it is more spectrally efficient (most important advantage in my eyes), but will not do so until vendors go after the masses and not early adopters. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 3:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP I hope all of you will read this post. I have spent a long time writing it and I think it is very important for us to all think about the issues involved. How about if we tie the 3.65 GHz band to one technology with our wallets instead of making Uncle Sam do it with regulation? We will see which platforms dominate over the next 5 years in wireless broadband. We are going to see some movement away from 802.11 based systems as a platform for delivery of outdoor broadband in all bands in my opinion. I think we will see a move toward licensed WiMax and LTE systems used predominantly for wireless broadband delivery as the next few years progress. I have little doubt that other platforms will be put to use but innovation will not occur from multiple platform distractions away from the goal of building efficient, cost effective and unified systems for outdoor wireless broadband. Do you think mixing several unrelated technologies into he same band is a good idea? I believe that we need to be using ONE platform in 3.65 and we need to all support it. Fragmentation of support, vendors, operators, etc. does not help our collective efforts. We need to decide on a platform and all of us need to use it if we are ever going to make headway as a group. The rest of the world is building WiMax in 3.4 thru 3.8 GHz. I just cannot see why we have to reinvent the wheel here. I assure you that if we all built on this platform that we could get the regulations changed to allow for WiMax use across the entire 50 MHz of this band. With GPS sync and 6 non-overlapping channels we could certainly avoid interference and deliver quality wireless broadband in 3.65 GHz. How does our industry standardizing on a platform like WiMax in 3.65 GHz stifle innovation? I think it does the opposite. I think it provides focus and clarity and economies of scale for a platform designed to provide outdoor wireless broadband. It is our best shot at building interconnected networks with scale and an exit strategy for operators, many having been running wireless broadband networks for over a decade. We are not getting any younger and someday we need to have something that someone will want to buy. I have given much thought to this. I am sure some will doubt what I am saying but I feel very strongly that we need to be setting a standard and supporting it as a group. If we cannot mass our buying power collectively toward a common platform VERY soon then we will not have to worry about it much longer because deeper pockets will do it for us. By most all accounts Telecoms with DSL and CableCos with DOCSIS have flourished by choosing industry standards for their broadband platforms and using it. They all support these same standards. I remember the early days of cable modems when there were 50 proprietary standards. Innovation came when the cable companies and their vendors banded together and built the DOCSIS standard and they all agreed to support it. That is innovation, focus, and efficiency. Why can't we do the same thing and learn from others who have succeeded? How can we achieve economies of scale with several different incompatible systems? I think we better wise up in 3.65 before we end up with an inefficiently used band with little chance of reuse (no GPS sync in 802.11x). All of us need to choose a platform which is designed to provide outdoor broadband efficiently and effectively. WiMax was built to fill this need and we need to start supporting it or face diminishing returns as the billions of dollars from others globally build over us. It is time for us to wake up and smell the coffee. The change is in the air and you need to be aware of it. The rest of the world is building WiMax networks to deliver wireless broadband. How long do we need to wait to see that this is not a fad? This is not just another option. It is how wireless broadband is going to be delivered in the 3.4 thru 3.8 GHz bands globally. Indeed it is how it is being done already. We are just late to the party. Do you think several non-cooperative systems (some of which are not even designed for outdoor wireless) are better than choosing a good standard and all of us supporting it? I am not trying to start a holy war
Re: [WISPA] Spam from ligowave?
Ryan Langseth wrote: Today i got an email from [EMAIL PROTECTED], i am fairly certain i did not give them my address at any point. I suspect it may have been harvested from the list, has anyone else seen a message from them today? It's nothing an email to spamcop and a call to their ISP cannot fix. :) WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Spam from ligowave?
No, really, we didn't harvest anyone's email from any mailing lists. We are very careful to only market to customers of our companies (Deliberant, Ligowave, Wiligear, Wilibox) and have a very simple removal and opt out policy that we honor. I'm sure you all market to your customers in various ways, and we do the same. We are also a vendor member of WISPA. -Hal -Original Message- From: Rogelio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Spam from ligowave? Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:56:28 -0700 Ryan Langseth wrote: Today i got an email from [EMAIL PROTECTED], i am fairly certain i did not give them my address at any point. I suspect it may have been harvested from the list, has anyone else seen a message from them today? It's nothing an email to spamcop and a call to their ISP cannot fix. :) WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Spam from ligowave?
More importantly I don't want to be annoyed by spamcop messages. ;) -Matt On Jul 2, 2008, at 7:05 PM, Harold Bledsoe wrote: No, really, we didn't harvest anyone's email from any mailing lists. We are very careful to only market to customers of our companies (Deliberant, Ligowave, Wiligear, Wilibox) and have a very simple removal and opt out policy that we honor. I'm sure you all market to your customers in various ways, and we do the same. We are also a vendor member of WISPA. -Hal -Original Message- From: Rogelio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Spam from ligowave? Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:56:28 -0700 Ryan Langseth wrote: Today i got an email from [EMAIL PROTECTED], i am fairly certain i did not give them my address at any point. I suspect it may have been harvested from the list, has anyone else seen a message from them today? It's nothing an email to spamcop and a call to their ISP cannot fix. :) WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by One Ring Networks, and is believed to be clean. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP
* Harold Bledsoe wrote, On 7/2/2008 3:19 PM: I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, any frequency that is tied to a particular standard by regulation will do nothing but stifle innovation in that band. I agree with Hal. As an amateur radio operator as well as someone in this and the broadcast business I have seen too many times where the FCC tried to over-regulate and stifled innovation. 3650 is a real PITA because of the grandfathered FSSes. I think, though, we might want to think about moving the full 50 mHz to restricted instead of unrestricted as I don't see unrestricted coming anytime soon. Leon -Hal -Original Message- From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:14:48 -0500 I would like to see WiMax approved for the entire 50 MHz and do away with the contention mechanism requirement for the upper 25 MHz as required under the rules. I know this is a flip-flop of position from our earlier position but frankly I see this as a god opportunity for WISPs to move up to the next level of reliability and scale. Many people are building in WiMax with success in the 3.5 to 3.8 GHz bands across the world. If WiMax were the standard for the 3650 band across 50 MHz then carriers could easily work together to band plan and move away from interference. With GPS sync the bands can be reused multiple times anyway. Sticking with one standard in this band just makes sense for us. It can be a WISP band if we do this. Spanking more out of 802.11 is old news and needs to be put to bed. It is time to use a real platform for scalable and reliable outdoor wireless broadband. WiMax is the path to this in 3.65 GHz. 802.22 will be the standard in the TV whitespaces (hopefully). It is time for us to standardize and use something better than repurposed WiFi. Scriv On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The energy level for backoff CAN be adjusted. The FCC says that NEITHER is acceptable, and even though the atheros mechanism is just an energy detection, it will not be allowed. This is what I gathered from an assortment of emails on the topic, some of which were from the FCC to someone wanting certification. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Harold Bledsoe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 4:52 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP The RF energy detection mechanism of 802.11a is sort of based on power level. If the preamble is detected and decoded, then the mechanism is activated at -82dBm. Otherwise it requires a relatively high energy level (-62dBm). Although I agree that even -62dBm seems fair. It would be very useful to know what part of the CCA mechanism of 802.11a does not work for the FCC's contention requirement. If it is not the detection mechanism, then perhaps it is the backoff mechanism? -Hal -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 01:23:31 -0700 That's nice, but in real life the FCC has simply gotten on a tear and decided that NOTHING qualifies for what they want. I have no idea what the purpose of this rather odd bit of nonsense is about, but when it declares that 802.11 does not detect dissimilar systems, then nothing can EVER be made to work. After all, the whole listen before talk is AN RF ENERGY DETECTOR.If that doesn't work, nothing can. Or, only that device or mechanism the person passing judgement wants to promote will work. We would spectulate who has bought this favor from the FCC, but in reality, it doesn't matter. I predict NO equipment will be certified for the rest of the spectrum and it will be auctioned for big bucks to some large entity. We'll still be in the same boat 2 years from now, with statements about we're watching the development of insert technology du jour here with interest. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 4:28 PM Subject: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP Update from the FCC. This makes is very clear to me what the FCC is looking for, if there are any questions or comments feel free. Sincerely, Tony Morella Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider Office: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008 http://www.demarctech.com Tony: Thank you for your inquiry. In the email you mentioned that several companies have obtained equipment authorization for
Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP
On Jul 2, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE wrote: 3650 is a real PITA because of the grandfathered FSSes. I think, though, we might want to think about moving the full 50 mHz to restricted instead of unrestricted as I don't see unrestricted coming anytime soon. Well there is a place WISPA could be useful. As an organization, go and work with the FSS owners to come up with a framework where WISPA members could more easily gain exceptions to the exclusion zones. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP
I am reminded of a short story I read many years ago. A salesman for farm equipment was out calling on customers in middle America and following his directions found himself turning off the maintained county road into a side road and was immediately confronted with a wide, very deeply rutted, muddy road, which disappeared around a bend just a short distance away. Immediately to his right was a hand lettered sign tacked to a fence corner that read PIck your rut carefully, you'll be in it for miles. Now, I suggest before we attempt to all climb into the same wagon, that we think long and hard about whether we all wish to be in the same rut. On another part of your topic, I don't know anyone who understands the 802.11 standard who likes it, much less loves it. On the other hand, we live in a world constrained by reality, and that reality is, that consumer driven development of the 802.11 chipsets has resulted in vast economies of scale which are tied to the 802.11 world. That allows us economical deployments that generate revenue, which pays for research into new and better ideas. Not just a few people ARE attempting to find the means of applying the mass produced hardware without being chainganged to the 802.11 weaknesses. I, for one, believe many of us are improving those odds by sticking with those software innovators, who will in time create viable and competitive alternatives to a monopoly. Whether we are chained to an 802.11 monopoly or a WiMax monopoly, neither is wise or wanted, in my view. As 'tempting' as it may seem, I never found that following a crowd resulted in my success - only my mediocrity. If the ONLY means by which I can compete is the colors painted on my install rig, the name I choose, and the gullibility of my investors to throw money into a sinking pit until I have squashed all other competition and then am a monooly free to rape and pillage until I am the equivalent of Standard Oil, then I'm already excluded from this game. The combined might of all the WISP's behind a single standard will definitely cause inflation, not economies of scale in innovative research. Innovation comes from thinking outside the box... outside the rut... outside of what everyone else is doing. We'll simply stifle any outside the box development. This is not to say that Much miles are not made from DOCSIS - to use a given example - but that two cable companies have no means of actual competition with each otehr... Besides the name, protecting territory via by law, slicker advertising, or by driving the otehr out of business - or finding more or deeper pocket investors. We could all probably dig and find at least a score of spectacular examples of this kind of let's all choose one road to follow, which DID result in at least one or two big winners, to the exclusion of everyone else. I'm thinking...Telco, Cableco, desktop OS's... None of which today we admire for thier innovation and continual striving for stunningly new results. How many years did it take phone companies to bring us ubuquitous broadband, even though they all agreed on wonderful standards? Seen the latest contender for desktop OS's at Walmart lately? Seen any companies outside of the Cable TV realm making any original research into a better mousetrap for delivering a network to clients over a CATV environment? Nope, they're all in one box and you'd have to be stupid to waste your money. Even a better system will never sell, the market has only a few players in a tight club. If you really think that success is found in travelling the road of life, all single file on the same road, by all means, speak up. I, for one, think this notion is one of the worst ideas I've seen in a years. Then again, there are those who aspire to be seen in the eyes of whoever they consider their peers, to be some specific type or image, and the prestige of being in an industry of a few big players playing footsie with the rich, powerful, or famous, seems really tempting to a lot of politcal aspirants. In my less than fully humble opinion, this is playing politics, not entrepreneurism. It may result in what they define as success, but it will not by my definition, certainly. Just call me a highly skeptical curmudgeon. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 1:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP I hope all of you will read this post. I have spent a long time writing it and I think it is very important for us to all think about the issues involved. How about if we tie the 3.65 GHz band to one technology with our wallets instead of making Uncle Sam do it with regulation? We will see which platforms dominate over the next 5 years in wireless broadband. We are
[WISPA] lease company
Hi, As someone who has done over 50 equipment leases over the last 10 years, I would like to share my experience with one. Business Direct Capital seemed very promising, and had good rates. Even their quote sheet that they made me sign looked good, except it was missing the type of lease ($1 buyout, 10% buyout or FMV). I wasn't worried as Rick there seemed like he was on the ball. I had emailed him saying I wanted $1 buyout (that's how we do ALL of our leases). Two days later when the real lease documents show up, the lease numbers were correct, but the type of lease was 10% buyout (thus raising the interest rate by 3%). After several emails back and forth, I decided it was going no where and found another company (one that Rick had no problem bad-mouthing). They completed a new lease in less time, at a better rate (Taycor Financial, Drew is the contact). Now today I am getting an invoice from Business Direct Capital for 15% of the original total lease amount as a fee for not completing the lease. Of course, we will not be paying it and will have no further contact with them at this point. This is just a heads up about Business Direct Capital. Stay away. There are plenty of other good leasing companies that don't try and pull a fast one on people like they tried here. Travis Microserv WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Apology RE: Spam from ligowave?
Thanks for the clarification Ryan Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ryan Langseth Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 5:26 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Appology RE: Spam from ligowave? My (phone's) email client did not completely download the message I received from them, it cut off the the part that clearly explained where it was from. It was a legit email due to a list I had signed up for. I apologize for the accusation of email harvesting on list. I should have researched it more before sending. Sincerely, Ryan Langseth -Original Message- From: Ryan Langseth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 3:47 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Spam from ligowave? Today i got an email from [EMAIL PROTECTED], i am fairly certain i did not give them my address at any point. I suspect it may have been harvested from the list, has anyone else seen a message from them today? Ryan --- - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ --- - WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ --- - 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. Version: 8.0.134 / Virus Database: 270.4.4/1531 - Release Date: 7/2/2008 7:02 PM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Spam from ligowave?
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Rogelio wrote: It's nothing an email to spamcop and a call to their ISP cannot fix. :) While this may be true, it is better to first contact the sender at least one time. -- *Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks* *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer* WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Spam from ligowave?
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Harold Bledsoe wrote: No, really, we didn't harvest anyone's email from any mailing lists. We are very careful to only market to customers of our companies (Deliberant, Ligowave, Wiligear, Wilibox) and have a very simple removal and opt out policy that we honor. The world has changed somewhat over the past few years. While I appreciate your opt-out policy, I feel the need to ask...is your marketing list opt-in in the first place? I am not attacking here, but just wanted a bit of clarification. For me, most of my customers are on an opt-out list, but the first email sent to that list was one that was not marketing at all, but a note telling them that I planned to use the email they provided me for a marketing list. That was how I handled it, but each company operates differently. I'm sure you all market to your customers in various ways, and we do the same. We are also a vendor member of WISPA. Vendor membership offers a lot of nice relaxations of the normal posting policies. I am not accusing you of such a thing, but wanted to clarify that vendor membership does not provide a license to harvest... (I know you didn't harvest list addresses...) -- *Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks* *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer* WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
