Re: [WISPA] tower erection question
Wasn't it Rick Kunse (not sure spelling of last name the guy with the speed boat? I just did the base for a 120ft tower. Concrete, rebar, dirt work ran $8200 could gotten it a little cheaper but that guy was taking way to long on a different job so went with another company that cost a bit more but got it done fast and did a great job. That was for 10 cu feet of concrete. In a single pour into one single hole. For a 200ft either you have a giant slab or three piers. /Eje Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 23:35:00 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question Note, At WISPCON II, I think it was Jeremy, that did a session about his experience installing a 200ft self standing tower, that he got put up for $25k, all costs included. (allthough that is the lowest i've ever seen reported) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Eric Rogers ecrog...@precisionds.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 7:36 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question That seems awful cheap to me...I would expect at least $50k or more. A 200' self-supporting tower cost me about $65k and I did all of the leg work. If you have a tower crew, I would expect $15k for labor, $2000 for earthwork, and I don't know the concrete requirements so maybe $1000, $3000-5000 for fencing, $7000 for lighting, $5k for paperwork and variances (don't forget to notify the FAA, EPA, and some Indian preservation group). I figure roughly $33k just for construction. That is not including a building and steel (tower price). The paperwork is the hardest part to get completed. It isn't hard work, just busy work. Thanks, Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 3:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question So more or less a turn key tower? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: chris cooper ccoo...@intelliwave.com Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 10:22 AM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] tower erection question Ok, pretty general question I know, but does anyone have a ball park figure for erection of a 300' Rohn 65G - earthwork, steel and construction? Thanks Chris 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/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.9.17/1846 - Release Date: 12/12/2008 6:59 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/ 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] Vecima 3.65
I can say for the Tranzeo weather proofing rj45 setup is ok.. I haven't had any problems with it seeping water. We have been using these for 4 years (note I am knocking on wood right now) :) Thomas P Galla t...@bluegrass.net BluegrassNet Voice (502) 589.INET [4638] Fax 502-315-0581 321 East Breckinridge St Louisville KY 40203 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 1:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi, We received our Vecima trial kit (one AP and five CPE) on Thursday afternoon. We have not yet put it on a tower, as there were several issues with their software on the AP... but here's some info thus far: The base station is quite large. It measures approximately 14 inches tall x 8 inches wide x 6 inches thick. It weighs about 25 pounds (seriously). It has an RJ-45 ethernet connector and an N-male connector on the bottom. (I was lead to believe they had omni, 90 degree, 120 degree and connectorized versions, and I requested the 120 unit, but instead got this with an LMR jumper and an MTI 120 antenna). We began by getting into the AP and making some normal changes (downlink was set to 50%, so we changed it to 70%). Also the center frequency was set to 3.410 so we changed that to 3.650. We also changed to 7mhz channel size. We then applied and rebooted... and then we could no longer get into the radio configuration page (where we had just made all those changes). So we did a factory reset and tried again. Same thing. We opened a trouble ticket with Vecima the next morning, and they were able to reproduce the problem in their lab. Then about 3 hours later, another tech called back and told us we needed to upgrade the firmware (even though the first tech said we were running the latest). We upgraded and that fixed the problem... but then we had a new problem. The Allowed MAC address file somehow got corrupted... so they had to SSH into the base station and fix that file. (By the way, this AP is just running Linux 2.6.14 kernel). We were now able to make a connection to one of the CPE (after setting up the service classifiers, service flows, and adding a service flow to this MAC address). Making a link on our test bench (10 feet away), we had a -55ish signal... however, the ping times and speeds were terrible (2000ms and at the most 2Mbps). I am thinking it was because this is running OFDM and in close proximity, the signals bounce all over. Last, all three techs that I talked to at Vecima asked Do you have an NMS (network management server)? and I had to continually say no and then they would say oh... I don't know how to do this manually. One of the reasons we were testing this solution is that it did not require their NMS to function... however, even their tech support is pretty limited if you don't have it. Their NMS se rver is about $5,000 (but a single server will support an entire network, with unlimited AP's and CPE). On to the CPE: This is one of the worst designs of a CPE that I have ever seen. The entire unit is made by Tranzeo and looks just like their normal 2.4 CPE. It has the bar of lights on the top showing Power, LAN, RSSI, etc. The mounting bracket is the L bracket that bolts to the back and has a U-bolt and clamp to hook to the pipe. The biggest problem is how the ethernet cable connects. It has the white cover plate that goes over the RJ-45 connector that has to be bolted to the back of the radio... the problem is, the pass-thru connector is not big enough to allow an already crimped RJ-45 cable to pass thru... meaning, you have to run the cable thru the white plastic thing, then crimp it, then plug it in, and then screw the nuts down holding the white cover. If you ever have to replace the radio with something different, you have to cut the cable and then re-crimp. Also, I can guarantee that water is going to get into the RJ-45 as it is on the back of the radio and the water will always be trying to get into the white cover and then will just flow right into the RJ-45. I have attached a picture that is 99% the same as this unit (except this unit is smaller than the picture). The other issue is the PoE injector that comes with the unit. This is the worst PoE that I have ever seen. I don't understand why they can't use a grounded PoE that doesn't require a separate ground wire. Use the ground built into the electrical wiring that is already there (like the PacWireless PoE units). Attached is a picture of the PoE that was supplied. I will be testing the speeds and range this Monday (assuming the weather is better... we got 6 of snow and 40MPH winds last night). I will post more results as I have them. At this point, I am not really impressed with a $4,000 AP that's just running Linux. Travis Microserv No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Re: [WISPA] tower erection question
That would have been Rick Kunze. http://www.do-it-yourself-tower.com/ Where is he, anyway? I haven't heard from him in a long itme... - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 10:35 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question Note, At WISPCON II, I think it was Jeremy, that did a session about his experience installing a 200ft self standing tower, that he got put up for $25k, all costs included. (allthough that is the lowest i've ever seen reported) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Eric Rogers ecrog...@precisionds.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 7:36 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question That seems awful cheap to me...I would expect at least $50k or more. A 200' self-supporting tower cost me about $65k and I did all of the leg work. If you have a tower crew, I would expect $15k for labor, $2000 for earthwork, and I don't know the concrete requirements so maybe $1000, $3000-5000 for fencing, $7000 for lighting, $5k for paperwork and variances (don't forget to notify the FAA, EPA, and some Indian preservation group). I figure roughly $33k just for construction. That is not including a building and steel (tower price). The paperwork is the hardest part to get completed. It isn't hard work, just busy work. Thanks, Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 3:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question So more or less a turn key tower? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: chris cooper ccoo...@intelliwave.com Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 10:22 AM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] tower erection question Ok, pretty general question I know, but does anyone have a ball park figure for erection of a 300' Rohn 65G - earthwork, steel and construction? Thanks Chris 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/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.9.17/1846 - Release Date: 12/12/2008 6:59 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/ 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] Vecima 3.65
I'll chime in with a few comments: I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the 3.65 GHz ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for sure there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far in practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in their markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more significant CAPEX investment on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to deploy aggressively in a market where several operators are already live. Second, since the rule does not define neither the nature nor extent of the cooperation, the first in operators seem to have a leg up with the next in folks needing to work around them to some extent. At a minimum, cooperation as it relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon for the lawyer class and since most WISPs are loathe to deploy an attorney to battle the first in's attorney, many opt to find greener pastures. Also, according to me Redline friends, we are learning that the FCC has rejected some registrations of multiple operators on the same tower site. So on balance, the interference risks in 3.65 GHz are minimal as compared to 5.x GHz and certainly the other ISM bands. I do wish that the FCC would use some of the 3.65 HGz license fees to create an enforcement pool, as well as defining a more specific set of rules and procedures for the human side of 3.65 GHz cooperation. Cheers, Patrick Leary Aperto Networks 813.426.4230 mobile -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I consider my reply to be of enough value that I am sending out on the WISPA members list. You will see my reply there. Scriv On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote: John, What are your thoughts about using the 3.65ghz band that has no capabilities to handle any type of noise rejection? One of my big concerns with 3.65ghz is spending a lot of money on base stations, NMS, etc. and then having someone purchase a $3,000 LigoWave 3.65 point to point link and shut my system down completely. I believe this to be a _very_ real concern in this space. I know the Vecima equipment is just a frequency change from their 3.5ghz equipment. I know equipment in that band has nothing to deal with noise, because they are licensed frequencies and therefore don't need to worry about interference. Do you have concerns about this? The FCC has already said that problems will need to be worked out, and that they are not going to step in and do anything. It will NOT be a first come first serve basis as many believe. Thoughts? Comments? Travis Microserv John Scrivner wrote: My thoughts inline below: On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net t...@ida.net wrote: U pricing is WAY, WAY different. Redline AP's are around $10k Vecima AP's are around $4k Redline has an FCC approved system with 3 - 120 degree sectors with a 3-way splitter which allows for full 360 degree coverage now with one sector controller with upgrade path for more sector controllers as your needs increase over time. Redline supports uplink sub-channelization which adds about 15 db of increased receive sensitivity to your CPE to base station link. I find the cost is justified for the Redline system and I have one online that I am very happy with. I am moving my leased line connections to WiMax with better speeds and erquivalent reliability. The ROI for this base station ist less than 2.5 years now and will improve as I add more customers. I feel very satisfied with the Redline system and am confident we will add more Redline bases in the future. Redline CPE's are $300 each (even in 250 quantity) Vecima CPE's are less than $249 Redline CPEs are built like a tank. They have the Intel WiMax Ruby chipset (the best available at any price). Future migration to 802.16e for this CPE is a firmware flash. It is true that you have to buy 72 radios (not 250) to get the $300 price point. They are well worth the money. I take a Redline CPE in with me on sales calls. The quality helps me sell WiMax.. It is that nice of a piece. It is the best quality CPE device I have used. It is very similar to the quality look and feel of the Alvarion VL CPE radios. And, I was told Tranzeo is making Redline's CPE as well? Could you send a picture of the Redline CPE? This is not true at all. Tranzeo and Redline CPEs are night and day different from one another. The quality of the Redline CPE was a big part of my decision to choose Redline as our WiMax platform. Nothing touches the Intel Ruby chipset. It is the best going. Scriv -- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today!http://signup.wispa.org/
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
Patrick, Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through just fine. I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case. Travis Microserv Patrick Leary wrote: I'll chime in with a few comments: I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the 3.65 GHz ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for sure there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far in practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in their markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more significant CAPEX investment on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to deploy aggressively in a market where several operators are already live. Second, since the rule does not define neither the nature nor extent of the cooperation, the first in operators seem to have a leg up with the next in folks needing to work around them to some extent. At a minimum, cooperation as it relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon for the lawyer class and since most WISPs are loathe to deploy an attorney to battle the first in's attorney, many opt to find greener pastures. Also, according to me Redline friends, we are learning that the FCC has rejected some registrations of multiple operators on the same tower site. So on balance, the interference risks in 3.65 GHz are minimal as compared to 5.x GHz and certainly the other ISM bands. I do wish that the FCC would use some of the 3.65 HGz license fees to create an enforcement pool, as well as defining a more specific set of rules and procedures for the human side of 3.65 GHz cooperation. Cheers, Patrick Leary Aperto Networks 813.426.4230 mobile -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I consider my reply to be of enough value that I am sending out on the WISPA members list. You will see my reply there. Scriv On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote: John, What are your thoughts about using the 3.65ghz band that has no capabilities to handle any type of noise rejection? One of my big concerns with 3.65ghz is spending a lot of money on base stations, NMS, etc. and then having someone purchase a $3,000 LigoWave 3.65 point to point link and shut my system down completely. I believe this to be a _very_ real concern in this space. I know the Vecima equipment is just a frequency change from their 3.5ghz equipment. I know equipment in that band has nothing to deal with noise, because they are licensed frequencies and therefore don't need to worry about interference. Do you have concerns about this? The FCC has already said that problems will need to be "worked out", and that they are not going to step in and do anything. It will NOT be a first come first serve basis as many believe. Thoughts? Comments? Travis Microserv John Scrivner wrote: My thoughts inline below: On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net t...@ida.net wrote: U pricing is WAY, WAY different. Redline AP's are around $10k Vecima AP's are around $4k Redline has an FCC approved system with 3 - 120 degree sectors with a 3-way splitter which allows for full 360 degree coverage now with one sector controller with upgrade path for more sector controllers as your needs increase over time. Redline supports uplink sub-channelization which adds about 15 db of increased receive sensitivity to your CPE to base station link. I find the cost is justified for the Redline system and I have one online that I am very happy with. I am moving my leased line connections to WiMax with better speeds and erquivalent reliability. The ROI for this base station ist less than 2.5 years now and will improve as I add more customers. I feel very satisfied with the Redline system and am confident we will add more Redline bases in the future. Redline CPE's are $300 each (even in 250 quantity) Vecima CPE's are less than $249 Redline CPEs are built like a tank. They have the Intel WiMax Ruby chipset (the best available at any price). Future migration to 802.16e for this CPE is a firmware flash. It is true that you have to buy 72 radios (not 250) to get the $300 price point. They are well worth the money. I take a Redline CPE in with me on sales calls. The quality helps me sell WiMax.. It is that nice of a piece. It is the best quality CPE device I have used. It is very similar to the quality look and
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have anything other than an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a conference. I had always been under the impression an operator could register for the same locations. Patrick From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Patrick, Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through just fine. I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case. Travis Microserv Patrick Leary wrote: I'll chime in with a few comments: I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the 3.65 GHz ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for sure there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far in practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in their markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more significant CAPEX investment on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to deploy aggressively in a market where several operators are already live. Second, since the rule does not define neither the nature nor extent of the cooperation, the first in operators seem to have a leg up with the next in folks needing to work around them to some extent. At a minimum, cooperation as it relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon for the lawyer class and since most WISPs are loathe to deploy an attorney to battle the first in's attorney, many opt to find greener pastures. Also, according to me Redline friends, we are learning that the FCC has rejected some registrations of multiple operators on the same tower site. So on balance, the interference risks in 3.65 GHz are minimal as compared to 5.x GHz and certainly the other ISM bands. I do wish that the FCC would use some of the 3.65 HGz license fees to create an enforcement pool, as well as defining a more specific set of rules and procedures for the human side of 3.65 GHz cooperation. Cheers, Patrick Leary Aperto Networks 813.426.4230 mobile -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I consider my reply to be of enough value that I am sending out on the WISPA members list. You will see my reply there. Scriv On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net wrote: John, What are your thoughts about using the 3.65ghz band that has no capabilities to handle any type of noise rejection? One of my big concerns with 3.65ghz is spending a lot of money on base stations, NMS, etc. and then having someone purchase a $3,000 LigoWave 3.65 point to point link and shut my system down completely. I believe this to be a _very_ real concern in this space. I know the Vecima equipment is just a frequency change from their 3.5ghz equipment. I know equipment in that band has nothing to deal with noise, because they are licensed frequencies and therefore don't need to worry about interference. Do you have concerns about this? The FCC has already said that problems will need to be worked out, and that they are not going to step in and do anything. It will NOT be a first come first serve basis as many believe. Thoughts? Comments? Travis Microserv John Scrivner wrote: My thoughts inline below: On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net wrote: U pricing is WAY, WAY different. Redline AP's are around $10k
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
Patrick, Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that was going to do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered all of the high ground in the area preventing them from registering their own sites. The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they are in a heck of a problem. Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have anything other than an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a conference. I had always been under the impression an operator could register for the same locations. Patrick From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Patrick, Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through just fine. I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case. Travis Microserv Patrick Leary wrote: I'll chime in with a few comments: I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the 3.65 GHz ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for sure there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far in practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in their markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more significant CAPEX investment on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to deploy aggressively in a market where several operators are already live. Second, since the rule does not define neither the nature nor extent of the cooperation, the first in operators seem to have a leg up with the next in folks needing to work around them to some extent. At a minimum, cooperation as it relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon for the lawyer class and since most WISPs are loathe to deploy an attorney to battle the first in's attorney, many opt to find greener pastures. Also, according to me Redline friends, we are learning that the FCC has rejected some registrations of multiple operators on the same tower site. So on balance, the interference risks in 3.65 GHz are minimal as compared to 5.x GHz and certainly the other ISM bands. I do wish that the FCC would use some of the 3.65 HGz license fees to create an enforcement pool, as well as defining a more specific set of rules and procedures for the human side of 3.65 GHz cooperation. Cheers, Patrick Leary Aperto Networks 813.426.4230 mobile -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I consider my reply to be of enough value that I am sending out on the WISPA members list. You will see my reply there. Scriv On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net wrote: John, What are your thoughts about using the 3.65ghz band that has no capabilities to handle any type of noise rejection? One of my big concerns with 3.65ghz is spending a lot of money on base stations, NMS, etc. and then having someone purchase a $3,000 LigoWave 3.65 point to point link and shut my system down completely. I believe this to be a _very_ real concern in this space. I know the Vecima equipment is just a frequency change from their 3.5ghz equipment. I know equipment in that band has nothing to deal with noise, because they are licensed frequencies and therefore don't need to worry about interference. Do you have concerns about this? The FCC has already said that problems will need to be worked out, and that they are not going to step in and do anything. It will NOT be a first come first serve basis as many believe. Thoughts? Comments? Travis Microserv John Scrivner wrote: My thoughts inline below:
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
Hi, We are going to need specifics on this... because this is NOT what the FCC has said would happen nor is it what other people (at ISPCon) have said. There is another story of a telco that owns several of the "ground stations" that prevent others from registering 3.65 in that area... I wonder if those stories are getting mixed together? Travis 3-dB Networks wrote: Patrick, Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that was going to do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered all of the high ground in the area preventing them from registering their own sites. The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they are in a heck of a problem. Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have anything other than an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a conference. I had always been under the impression an operator could register for the same locations. Patrick From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Patrick, Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through just fine. I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case. Travis Microserv Patrick Leary wrote: I'll chime in with a few comments: I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the 3.65 GHz ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for sure there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far in practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in their markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more significant CAPEX investment on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to deploy aggressively in a market where several operators are already live. Second, since the rule does not define neither the nature nor extent of the cooperation, the first in operators seem to have a leg up with the next in folks needing to work around them to some extent. At a minimum, cooperation as it relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon for the lawyer class and since most WISPs are loathe to deploy an attorney to battle the first in's attorney, many opt to find greener pastures. Also, according to me Redline friends, we are learning that the FCC has rejected some registrations of multiple operators on the same tower site. So on balance, the interference risks in 3.65 GHz are minimal as compared to 5.x GHz and certainly the other ISM bands. I do wish that the FCC would use some of the 3.65 HGz license fees to create an enforcement pool, as well as defining a more specific set of rules and procedures for the human side of 3.65 GHz cooperation. Cheers, Patrick Leary Aperto Networks 813.426.4230 mobile -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I consider my reply to be of enough value that I am sending out on the WISPA members list. You will see my reply there. Scriv On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net wrote: John, What are your thoughts about using the 3.65ghz band that has no capabilities to handle any type of noise rejection? One of my big concerns with 3.65ghz is spending a lot of money on base stations, NMS, etc. and then having someone purchase a $3,000 LigoWave 3.65 point to point link and shut my system down completely. I believe this to be a _very_ real concern in this space. I know the Vecima equipment is just a frequency change from their 3.5ghz equipment. I know equipment in that band has nothing to deal with noise, because they are licensed frequencies and therefore don't need to worry about interference. Do you have concerns about this? The FCC has already said that problems will need to be "worked out", and that they are not going to step in and do anything. It will NOT be a first come first serve basis as many believe. Thoughts? Comments? Travis Microserv John Scrivner wrote: My thoughts inline below: On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net wrote: U pricing is WAY, WAY different.
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
I have always assumed multiple operators could register the same site too. Though I was skeptical (and remain so), Remi was really emphatic that the same site could not be registered and he mentioned that the Part 90 rule has some language that prevents multiple registrations. Like you, I'd need proof. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi, We are going to need specifics on this... because this is NOT what the FCC has said would happen nor is it what other people (at ISPCon) have said. There is another story of a telco that owns several of the ground stations that prevent others from registering 3.65 in that area... I wonder if those stories are getting mixed together? Travis 3-dB Networks wrote: Patrick, Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that was going to do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered all of the high ground in the area preventing them from registering their own sites. The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they are in a heck of a problem. Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have anything other than an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a conference. I had always been under the impression an operator could register for the same locations. Patrick From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Patrick, Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through just fine. I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case. Travis Microserv Patrick Leary wrote: I'll chime in with a few comments: I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the 3.65 GHz ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for sure there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far in practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in their markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more significant CAPEX investment on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to deploy aggressively in a market where several operators are already live. Second, since the rule does not define neither the nature nor extent of the cooperation, the first in operators seem to have a leg up with the next in folks needing to work around them to some extent. At a minimum, cooperation as it relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon for the lawyer class and since most WISPs are loathe to deploy an attorney to battle the first in's attorney, many opt to find greener pastures. Also, according to me Redline friends, we are learning that the FCC has rejected some registrations of multiple operators on the same tower site. So on balance, the interference risks in 3.65 GHz are minimal as compared to 5.x GHz and certainly the
[WISPA] SkyWi Sues Qwest for Racketeering Monopolistic Practices
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/SkyWi-Sues-Qwest-Racketeering-Monopolistic/story.aspx?guid={4118C3E4-CBC0-4B7B-ABA0-9E041B08A68A}
Think they will win?
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] Vecima 3.65
Not sure how I can prove it... being that I didn't actually go through this but its what one of our customers told us (and they are not on the list). Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I have always assumed multiple operators could register the same site too. Though I was skeptical (and remain so), Remi was really emphatic that the same site could not be registered and he mentioned that the Part 90 rule has some language that prevents multiple registrations. Like you, I'd need proof. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi, We are going to need specifics on this... because this is NOT what the FCC has said would happen nor is it what other people (at ISPCon) have said. There is another story of a telco that owns several of the ground stations that prevent others from registering 3.65 in that area... I wonder if those stories are getting mixed together? Travis 3-dB Networks wrote: Patrick, Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that was going to do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered all of the high ground in the area preventing them from registering their own sites. The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they are in a heck of a problem. Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have anything other than an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a conference. I had always been under the impression an operator could register for the same locations. Patrick From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Patrick, Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through just fine. I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case. Travis Microserv Patrick Leary wrote: I'll chime in with a few comments: I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the 3.65 GHz ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for sure there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far in practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in their markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more significant CAPEX investment on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to deploy aggressively in a market where several operators are already live. Second, since the rule does not define neither the nature nor extent of the cooperation, the first in operators seem to have a leg up with the next in folks needing to work around them to some extent. At a minimum, cooperation as it relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon for the lawyer class and since most WISPs are loathe to deploy an attorney to battle the first in's attorney, many opt to find greener pastures. Also, according to me Redline friends, we are learning that the FCC has rejected some registrations of multiple
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
This is easy to confirm, just go ahead an register a base on a know site Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Not sure how I can prove it... being that I didn't actually go through this but its what one of our customers told us (and they are not on the list). Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I have always assumed multiple operators could register the same site too. Though I was skeptical (and remain so), Remi was really emphatic that the same site could not be registered and he mentioned that the Part 90 rule has some language that prevents multiple registrations. Like you, I'd need proof. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi, We are going to need specifics on this... because this is NOT what the FCC has said would happen nor is it what other people (at ISPCon) have said. There is another story of a telco that owns several of the ground stations that prevent others from registering 3.65 in that area... I wonder if those stories are getting mixed together? Travis 3-dB Networks wrote: Patrick, Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that was going to do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered all of the high ground in the area preventing them from registering their own sites. The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they are in a heck of a problem. Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have anything other than an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a conference. I had always been under the impression an operator could register for the same locations. Patrick From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Patrick, Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through just fine. I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case. Travis Microserv Patrick Leary wrote: I'll chime in with a few comments: I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the 3.65 GHz ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for sure there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far in practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in their markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more significant CAPEX investment on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to deploy aggressively in a market where several operators are already live. Second, since the rule does not define neither the nature nor extent of the cooperation, the first in operators seem to have a leg up with the next in folks needing to work around them to some extent. At a minimum, cooperation as it relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
I don't have a license to do it with :-) Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 10:00 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 This is easy to confirm, just go ahead an register a base on a know site Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Not sure how I can prove it... being that I didn't actually go through this but its what one of our customers told us (and they are not on the list). Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I have always assumed multiple operators could register the same site too. Though I was skeptical (and remain so), Remi was really emphatic that the same site could not be registered and he mentioned that the Part 90 rule has some language that prevents multiple registrations. Like you, I'd need proof. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi, We are going to need specifics on this... because this is NOT what the FCC has said would happen nor is it what other people (at ISPCon) have said. There is another story of a telco that owns several of the ground stations that prevent others from registering 3.65 in that area... I wonder if those stories are getting mixed together? Travis 3-dB Networks wrote: Patrick, Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that was going to do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered all of the high ground in the area preventing them from registering their own sites. The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they are in a heck of a problem. Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have anything other than an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a conference. I had always been under the impression an operator could register for the same locations. Patrick From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Patrick, Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through just fine. I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case. Travis Microserv Patrick Leary wrote: I'll chime in with a few comments: I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the 3.65 GHz ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for sure there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far in practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in their markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more significant CAPEX investment on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to deploy aggressively in a market where several operators are already live. Second, since the rule does not define neither the nature nor
Re: [WISPA] SkyWi Sues Qwest for Racketeering Monopolistic Practices
George: When I click on the link that you sent I get a Market Watch header,
but a document not found message in the body of the narrative.
FYI...Ron
-Original Message-
From: George Rogato [mailto:wi...@oregonfast.net]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 11:42 AM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] SkyWi Sues Qwest for Racketeering Monopolistic Practices
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/SkyWi-Sues-Qwest-Racketeering-Monopoli
stic/story.aspx?guid={4118C3E4-CBC0-4B7B-ABA0-9E041B08A68A}
Think they will win?
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] SkyWi Sues Qwest for Racketeering MonopolisticPractices
I had the same. I just added } or the rest of the link.
Mike Goicoechea
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Ron Harden
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 11:10 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] SkyWi Sues Qwest for Racketeering
MonopolisticPractices
George: When I click on the link that you sent I get a Market Watch header,
but a document not found message in the body of the narrative.
FYI...Ron
-Original Message-
From: George Rogato [mailto:wi...@oregonfast.net]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 11:42 AM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] SkyWi Sues Qwest for Racketeering Monopolistic Practices
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/SkyWi-Sues-Qwest-Racketeering-Monopoli
stic/story.aspx?guid={4118C3E4-CBC0-4B7B-ABA0-9E041B08A68A}
Think they will win?
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] SkyWi Sues Qwest for Racketeering Monopolistic Practices
Ron
Try this one:
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2008/12/09/3844370.htm
I think market watch url might have some session limitations.
George
Ron Harden wrote:
George: When I click on the link that you sent I get a Market Watch header,
but a document not found message in the body of the narrative.
FYI...Ron
-Original Message-
From: George Rogato [mailto:wi...@oregonfast.net]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 11:42 AM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] SkyWi Sues Qwest for Racketeering Monopolistic Practices
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/SkyWi-Sues-Qwest-Racketeering-Monopoli
stic/story.aspx?guid={4118C3E4-CBC0-4B7B-ABA0-9E041B08A68A}
Think they will win?
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] Vecima 3.65 update
What QOS are you using on that conenction? Berst effort? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update Hi, Ok... we mounted the base station yesterday and put up the CPE at our office this morning. It's a 7 mile shot, and we have a -77 RSSI running at 16QAM. We are able to get up to 6Mbps x 6Mbps right now (can't do more because the base station has a limit of 6Mbps per CPE set right now). Here is my biggest complaint with the bandwidth/speed/latency. The BEST possible latency we can get is 35ms. This is with absolutely no traffic, and just a normal Windows XP ping. This is not acceptable for this type of equipment. I know people have talked about Redline being about the same. Any other quick tests anyone wants to see before we take the CPE down? 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/ 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] Vecima 3.65 update
I get 10 ms on every packet every time with no loss. I am using Redline with non-real time polling. Scriv On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote: What QOS are you using on that conenction? Berst effort? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update Hi, Ok... we mounted the base station yesterday and put up the CPE at our office this morning. It's a 7 mile shot, and we have a -77 RSSI running at 16QAM. We are able to get up to 6Mbps x 6Mbps right now (can't do more because the base station has a limit of 6Mbps per CPE set right now). Here is my biggest complaint with the bandwidth/speed/latency. The BEST possible latency we can get is 35ms. This is with absolutely no traffic, and just a normal Windows XP ping. This is not acceptable for this type of equipment. I know people have talked about Redline being about the same. Any other quick tests anyone wants to see before we take the CPE down? 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/ 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] Vecima 3.65 update
We tried them all... best effort, non-polling real time, and polling real time. All the same latency. We are also using 5ms frame and 1/8 carrier. Travis Gino Villarini wrote: What QOS are you using on that conenction? Berst effort? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update Hi, Ok... we mounted the base station yesterday and put up the CPE at our office this morning. It's a 7 mile shot, and we have a -77 RSSI running at 16QAM. We are able to get up to 6Mbps x 6Mbps right now (can't do more because the base station has a limit of 6Mbps per CPE set right now). Here is my biggest complaint with the bandwidth/speed/latency. The BEST possible latency we can get is 35ms. This is with absolutely no traffic, and just a normal Windows XP ping. This is not acceptable for this type of equipment. I know people have talked about Redline being about the same. Any other quick tests anyone wants to see before we take the CPE down? 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/ 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] High CRC errors on RedMax?
Are there any RedMax operators out there that have begun to see really high CRC errors on their sectors? We've got two sectors that have seemingly gone from very clean to abnormally high CRC errors, effecting calls and slowing Internet speeds etc? We have a ticket open with redline support but I wanted to see if any of you had experienced this. We even swapped out cabling on one of these sectors to no avail. Could it be a bad surge protector? Thanks in advance, -- John M. McDowell Boonlink Communications 307 Grand Ave NW Fort Payne, AL 35967 256.844.9932 j...@boonlink.com www.boonlink.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail j...@boonlink.com, and delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing, spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the source, please contact the sender directly. 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] Vecima 3.65 update
Switch to 1/4 carrier and 10 ms. I bet it clears up. Scriv On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote: We tried them all... best effort, non-polling real time, and polling real time. All the same latency. We are also using 5ms frame and 1/8 carrier. Travis Gino Villarini wrote: What QOS are you using on that conenction? Berst effort? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update Hi, Ok... we mounted the base station yesterday and put up the CPE at our office this morning. It's a 7 mile shot, and we have a -77 RSSI running at 16QAM. We are able to get up to 6Mbps x 6Mbps right now (can't do more because the base station has a limit of 6Mbps per CPE set right now). Here is my biggest complaint with the bandwidth/speed/latency. The BEST possible latency we can get is 35ms. This is with absolutely no traffic, and just a normal Windows XP ping. This is not acceptable for this type of equipment. I know people have talked about Redline being about the same. Any other quick tests anyone wants to see before we take the CPE down? 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/ 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] [Motorola II] High CRC errors on RedMax?
What code are you on? We're running 2.0.26.FCC On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Eric Muehleisen ericm...@gmail.comwrote: I've seen this when there is a bad SU registered. CRC's climb out of control. I have not seen this on multiple SU's before. It's typically singled out. Have you rebooted the AP recently. I'm running the latest beta code and have experience a couple of lockups over the past couple of months. -Eric John McDowell wrote: Are there any RedMax operators out there that have begun to see really high CRC errors on their sectors? We've got two sectors that have seemingly gone from very clean to abnormally high CRC errors, effecting calls and slowing Internet speeds etc? We have a ticket open with redline support but I wanted to see if any of you had experienced this. We even swapped out cabling on one of these sectors to no avail. Could it be a bad surge protector? Thanks in advance, -- John M. McDowell Boonlink Communications 307 Grand Ave NW Fort Payne, AL 35967 256.844.9932 j...@boonlink.com mailto:j...@boonlink.com www.boonlink.com http://www.boonlink.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail j...@boonlink.commailto: j...@boonlink.com, and delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing, spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the source, please contact the sender directly. -- John M. McDowell Boonlink Communications 307 Grand Ave NW Fort Payne, AL 35967 256.844.9932 j...@boonlink.com www.boonlink.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail j...@boonlink.com, and delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing, spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the source, please contact the sender directly. 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] Vecima 3.65
Bring out your credit card and go get one. Run you a wooping $260 and take you about 10min to do. ;) /Eje Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: 3-dB Networks wi...@3-db.net Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:04:18 To: 'WISPA General List'wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I don't have a license to do it with :-) Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 10:00 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 This is easy to confirm, just go ahead an register a base on a know site Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Not sure how I can prove it... being that I didn't actually go through this but its what one of our customers told us (and they are not on the list). Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I have always assumed multiple operators could register the same site too. Though I was skeptical (and remain so), Remi was really emphatic that the same site could not be registered and he mentioned that the Part 90 rule has some language that prevents multiple registrations. Like you, I'd need proof. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi, We are going to need specifics on this... because this is NOT what the FCC has said would happen nor is it what other people (at ISPCon) have said. There is another story of a telco that owns several of the ground stations that prevent others from registering 3.65 in that area... I wonder if those stories are getting mixed together? Travis 3-dB Networks wrote: Patrick, Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that was going to do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered all of the high ground in the area preventing them from registering their own sites. The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they are in a heck of a problem. Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have anything other than an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a conference. I had always been under the impression an operator could register for the same locations. Patrick From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Patrick, Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through just fine. I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case. Travis Microserv Patrick Leary wrote: I'll chime in with a few comments: I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the 3.65 GHz ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for sure there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far in practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in their markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more
Re: [WISPA] tower erection question
Odd, I swear that was Rick. Oh well... - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 11:44 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question Nope, the presentation I was referring to was WISPCONII day 3. Specialized - Building Your Own Tower - Learn how to select a site, pick the right tower, get construction approval, order all the components, and actually install your own communications tower. Also in this presentation the attendee will discover how to select the proper cell structure to cover those areas of interest to the WISP. Site selection based on coverage area desired, interference from competitors, and much more will be discussed. Panelists: Jeremy Anthony Kinsey - CEO Co Founder, Bella Mia, Inc (Mia.Net) Moderator: TBA Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 10:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question That would have been Rick Kunze. http://www.do-it-yourself-tower.com/ Where is he, anyway? I haven't heard from him in a long itme... - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 10:35 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question Note, At WISPCON II, I think it was Jeremy, that did a session about his experience installing a 200ft self standing tower, that he got put up for $25k, all costs included. (allthough that is the lowest i've ever seen reported) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Eric Rogers ecrog...@precisionds.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 7:36 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question That seems awful cheap to me...I would expect at least $50k or more. A 200' self-supporting tower cost me about $65k and I did all of the leg work. If you have a tower crew, I would expect $15k for labor, $2000 for earthwork, and I don't know the concrete requirements so maybe $1000, $3000-5000 for fencing, $7000 for lighting, $5k for paperwork and variances (don't forget to notify the FAA, EPA, and some Indian preservation group). I figure roughly $33k just for construction. That is not including a building and steel (tower price). The paperwork is the hardest part to get completed. It isn't hard work, just busy work. Thanks, Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 3:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question So more or less a turn key tower? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: chris cooper ccoo...@intelliwave.com Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 10:22 AM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] tower erection question Ok, pretty general question I know, but does anyone have a ball park figure for erection of a 300' Rohn 65G - earthwork, steel and construction? Thanks Chris 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/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.9.17/1846 -
Re: [WISPA] [Motorola II] High CRC errors on RedMax?
2.1.8.FCCMade on: Sep 4 2008, 14:15:50 Also, we are using AN-100UX's not U's. -Eric John McDowell wrote: What code are you on? We're running 2.0.26.FCC On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Eric Muehleisen ericm...@gmail.com mailto:ericm...@gmail.com wrote: I've seen this when there is a bad SU registered. CRC's climb out of control. I have not seen this on multiple SU's before. It's typically singled out. Have you rebooted the AP recently. I'm running the latest beta code and have experience a couple of lockups over the past couple of months. -Eric John McDowell wrote: Are there any RedMax operators out there that have begun to see really high CRC errors on their sectors? We've got two sectors that have seemingly gone from very clean to abnormally high CRC errors, effecting calls and slowing Internet speeds etc? We have a ticket open with redline support but I wanted to see if any of you had experienced this. We even swapped out cabling on one of these sectors to no avail. Could it be a bad surge protector? Thanks in advance, -- John M. McDowell Boonlink Communications 307 Grand Ave NW Fort Payne, AL 35967 256.844.9932 j...@boonlink.com mailto:j...@boonlink.com mailto:j...@boonlink.com mailto:j...@boonlink.com www.boonlink.com http://www.boonlink.com http://www.boonlink.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail j...@boonlink.com mailto:j...@boonlink.com mailto:j...@boonlink.com mailto:j...@boonlink.com, and delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing, spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the source, please contact the sender directly. -- John M. McDowell Boonlink Communications 307 Grand Ave NW Fort Payne, AL 35967 256.844.9932 j...@boonlink.com mailto:j...@boonlink.com www.boonlink.com http://www.boonlink.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail j...@boonlink.com mailto:j...@boonlink.com, and delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing, spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the source, please contact the sender directly. 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] [Motorola II] High CRC errors on RedMax?
Have you got that file? On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Eric Muehleisen ericm...@gmail.comwrote: 2.1.8.FCCMade on: Sep 4 2008, 14:15:50 Also, we are using AN-100UX's not U's. -Eric John McDowell wrote: What code are you on? We're running 2.0.26.FCC On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Eric Muehleisen ericm...@gmail.com mailto:ericm...@gmail.com wrote: I've seen this when there is a bad SU registered. CRC's climb out of control. I have not seen this on multiple SU's before. It's typically singled out. Have you rebooted the AP recently. I'm running the latest beta code and have experience a couple of lockups over the past couple of months. -Eric John McDowell wrote: Are there any RedMax operators out there that have begun to see really high CRC errors on their sectors? We've got two sectors that have seemingly gone from very clean to abnormally high CRC errors, effecting calls and slowing Internet speeds etc? We have a ticket open with redline support but I wanted to see if any of you had experienced this. We even swapped out cabling on one of these sectors to no avail. Could it be a bad surge protector? Thanks in advance, -- John M. McDowell Boonlink Communications 307 Grand Ave NW Fort Payne, AL 35967 256.844.9932 j...@boonlink.com mailto:j...@boonlink.com mailto:j...@boonlink.com mailto:j...@boonlink.com www.boonlink.com http://www.boonlink.com http://www.boonlink.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail j...@boonlink.com mailto:j...@boonlink.com mailto:j...@boonlink.com mailto:j...@boonlink.com, and delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing, spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the source, please contact the sender directly. -- John M. McDowell Boonlink Communications 307 Grand Ave NW Fort Payne, AL 35967 256.844.9932 j...@boonlink.com mailto:j...@boonlink.com www.boonlink.com http://www.boonlink.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail j...@boonlink.com mailto:j...@boonlink.com, and delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing, spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the source, please contact the sender directly. 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/ -- John M. McDowell Boonlink Communications 307 Grand Ave NW Fort Payne, AL 35967 256.844.9932 j...@boonlink.com www.boonlink.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail j...@boonlink.com, and delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing, spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the source, please contact the sender directly. 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:
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
LOL but why would I... I'm not a WISP so I'll never deploy gear. Maybe it impresses girls ;-) Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of e...@wisp-router.com Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 11:12 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Bring out your credit card and go get one. Run you a wooping $260 and take you about 10min to do. ;) /Eje Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: 3-dB Networks wi...@3-db.net Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:04:18 To: 'WISPA General List'wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I don't have a license to do it with :-) Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 10:00 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 This is easy to confirm, just go ahead an register a base on a know site Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Not sure how I can prove it... being that I didn't actually go through this but its what one of our customers told us (and they are not on the list). Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I have always assumed multiple operators could register the same site too. Though I was skeptical (and remain so), Remi was really emphatic that the same site could not be registered and he mentioned that the Part 90 rule has some language that prevents multiple registrations. Like you, I'd need proof. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi, We are going to need specifics on this... because this is NOT what the FCC has said would happen nor is it what other people (at ISPCon) have said. There is another story of a telco that owns several of the ground stations that prevent others from registering 3.65 in that area... I wonder if those stories are getting mixed together? Travis 3-dB Networks wrote: Patrick, Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that was going to do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered all of the high ground in the area preventing them from registering their own sites. The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they are in a heck of a problem. Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have anything other than an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a conference. I had always been under the impression an operator could register for the same locations. Patrick From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Patrick, Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through just fine. I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case. Travis Microserv Patrick Leary wrote: I'll chime in with a few comments: I admit to having been frustrated by the
Re: [WISPA] tower erection question
My understanding is that Rick also did a session, but it was a second one at a different season of WISPCON, I think. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question Odd, I swear that was Rick. Oh well... - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 11:44 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question Nope, the presentation I was referring to was WISPCONII day 3. Specialized - Building Your Own Tower - Learn how to select a site, pick the right tower, get construction approval, order all the components, and actually install your own communications tower. Also in this presentation the attendee will discover how to select the proper cell structure to cover those areas of interest to the WISP. Site selection based on coverage area desired, interference from competitors, and much more will be discussed. Panelists: Jeremy Anthony Kinsey - CEO Co Founder, Bella Mia, Inc (Mia.Net) Moderator: TBA Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 10:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question That would have been Rick Kunze. http://www.do-it-yourself-tower.com/ Where is he, anyway? I haven't heard from him in a long itme... - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 10:35 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question Note, At WISPCON II, I think it was Jeremy, that did a session about his experience installing a 200ft self standing tower, that he got put up for $25k, all costs included. (allthough that is the lowest i've ever seen reported) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Eric Rogers ecrog...@precisionds.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 7:36 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question That seems awful cheap to me...I would expect at least $50k or more. A 200' self-supporting tower cost me about $65k and I did all of the leg work. If you have a tower crew, I would expect $15k for labor, $2000 for earthwork, and I don't know the concrete requirements so maybe $1000, $3000-5000 for fencing, $7000 for lighting, $5k for paperwork and variances (don't forget to notify the FAA, EPA, and some Indian preservation group). I figure roughly $33k just for construction. That is not including a building and steel (tower price). The paperwork is the hardest part to get completed. It isn't hard work, just busy work. Thanks, Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 3:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question So more or less a turn key tower? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: chris cooper ccoo...@intelliwave.com Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 10:22 AM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] tower erection question Ok, pretty general question I know, but does anyone have a ball park figure for erection of a 300' Rohn 65G - earthwork, steel and construction? Thanks Chris 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
Re: [WISPA] tower erection question
ah. Yeah, I'm not sure if I was at WISPCON 2 or not... 3 may have been my earliest, actually. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:42 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question My understanding is that Rick also did a session, but it was a second one at a different season of WISPCON, I think. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question Odd, I swear that was Rick. Oh well... - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 11:44 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question Nope, the presentation I was referring to was WISPCONII day 3. Specialized - Building Your Own Tower - Learn how to select a site, pick the right tower, get construction approval, order all the components, and actually install your own communications tower. Also in this presentation the attendee will discover how to select the proper cell structure to cover those areas of interest to the WISP. Site selection based on coverage area desired, interference from competitors, and much more will be discussed. Panelists: Jeremy Anthony Kinsey - CEO Co Founder, Bella Mia, Inc (Mia.Net) Moderator: TBA Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 10:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question That would have been Rick Kunze. http://www.do-it-yourself-tower.com/ Where is he, anyway? I haven't heard from him in a long itme... - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 10:35 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question Note, At WISPCON II, I think it was Jeremy, that did a session about his experience installing a 200ft self standing tower, that he got put up for $25k, all costs included. (allthough that is the lowest i've ever seen reported) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Eric Rogers ecrog...@precisionds.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 7:36 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question That seems awful cheap to me...I would expect at least $50k or more. A 200' self-supporting tower cost me about $65k and I did all of the leg work. If you have a tower crew, I would expect $15k for labor, $2000 for earthwork, and I don't know the concrete requirements so maybe $1000, $3000-5000 for fencing, $7000 for lighting, $5k for paperwork and variances (don't forget to notify the FAA, EPA, and some Indian preservation group). I figure roughly $33k just for construction. That is not including a building and steel (tower price). The paperwork is the hardest part to get completed. It isn't hard work, just busy work. Thanks, Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 3:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question So more or less a turn key tower? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: chris cooper ccoo...@intelliwave.com Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 10:22 AM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] tower erection question Ok, pretty general question I know, but does anyone have a ball park figure for erection of a 300' Rohn 65G - earthwork, steel and construction? Thanks Chris 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] Vecima 3.65
I have a license and registered site. I'm about to find out exactly how the FCC intends to deal with this. The site owner is a bandwidth provider, and they signed a frequency coordination agreement with someone else, but I got my license and site first. The other' guy is objecting to my using a full spectrum radio there . I don't know if he has tried to register yet or not. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:00 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 This is easy to confirm, just go ahead an register a base on a know site Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Not sure how I can prove it... being that I didn't actually go through this but its what one of our customers told us (and they are not on the list). Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 I have always assumed multiple operators could register the same site too. Though I was skeptical (and remain so), Remi was really emphatic that the same site could not be registered and he mentioned that the Part 90 rule has some language that prevents multiple registrations. Like you, I'd need proof. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi, We are going to need specifics on this... because this is NOT what the FCC has said would happen nor is it what other people (at ISPCon) have said. There is another story of a telco that owns several of the ground stations that prevent others from registering 3.65 in that area... I wonder if those stories are getting mixed together? Travis 3-dB Networks wrote: Patrick, Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that was going to do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered all of the high ground in the area preventing them from registering their own sites. The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they are in a heck of a problem. Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have anything other than an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a conference. I had always been under the impression an operator could register for the same locations. Patrick From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 Patrick, Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through just fine. I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case. Travis Microserv Patrick Leary wrote: I'll chime in with a few comments: I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the 3.65 GHz ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for sure there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far in practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in their markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more significant CAPEX investment on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to deploy aggressively in a market where several operators are already live. Second, since the rule does not define neither the nature nor extent of the cooperation, the first in operators seem to have a leg up with the next in folks needing to work around them to some extent. At a minimum, cooperation as it relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon for the lawyer class and since most WISPs are loathe to deploy an attorney to battle the first in's attorney, many opt to find greener pastures. Also, according to me Redline friends, we are learning that the
Re: [WISPA] tower erection question
Yeah that is right. I slept since then. Only one that I could think of was Rick that had done one but yes Jeremy did one to I think it was at an earlier WISPCon then Rick. I think Rick did his on WISPCon III. / Eje -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question My understanding is that Rick also did a session, but it was a second one at a different season of WISPCON, I think. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question Odd, I swear that was Rick. Oh well... - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 11:44 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question Nope, the presentation I was referring to was WISPCONII day 3. Specialized - Building Your Own Tower - Learn how to select a site, pick the right tower, get construction approval, order all the components, and actually install your own communications tower. Also in this presentation the attendee will discover how to select the proper cell structure to cover those areas of interest to the WISP. Site selection based on coverage area desired, interference from competitors, and much more will be discussed. Panelists: Jeremy Anthony Kinsey - CEO Co Founder, Bella Mia, Inc (Mia.Net) Moderator: TBA Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 10:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question That would have been Rick Kunze. http://www.do-it-yourself-tower.com/ Where is he, anyway? I haven't heard from him in a long itme... - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 10:35 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question Note, At WISPCON II, I think it was Jeremy, that did a session about his experience installing a 200ft self standing tower, that he got put up for $25k, all costs included. (allthough that is the lowest i've ever seen reported) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Eric Rogers ecrog...@precisionds.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 7:36 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question That seems awful cheap to me...I would expect at least $50k or more. A 200' self-supporting tower cost me about $65k and I did all of the leg work. If you have a tower crew, I would expect $15k for labor, $2000 for earthwork, and I don't know the concrete requirements so maybe $1000, $3000-5000 for fencing, $7000 for lighting, $5k for paperwork and variances (don't forget to notify the FAA, EPA, and some Indian preservation group). I figure roughly $33k just for construction. That is not including a building and steel (tower price). The paperwork is the hardest part to get completed. It isn't hard work, just busy work. Thanks, Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 3:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question So more or less a turn key tower? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: chris cooper ccoo...@intelliwave.com Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 10:22 AM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] tower erection question Ok, pretty general question I know, but does anyone have a ball park figure for erection of a 300' Rohn 65G - earthwork, steel and construction? Thanks Chris 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] tower erection question
Yep, Ricks session was WispCon3 Specialized - Do It Yourself Tower Installations - A Case History - This is a step by step trials and tribulations of one WISPs experience in erecting his own, large tower. Panelists: Rick Kunze Moderator: Jeremy Kinsey Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Eje Gustafsson e...@wisp-router.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 2:50 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question Yeah that is right. I slept since then. Only one that I could think of was Rick that had done one but yes Jeremy did one to I think it was at an earlier WISPCon then Rick. I think Rick did his on WISPCon III. / Eje -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question My understanding is that Rick also did a session, but it was a second one at a different season of WISPCON, I think. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question Odd, I swear that was Rick. Oh well... - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 11:44 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question Nope, the presentation I was referring to was WISPCONII day 3. Specialized - Building Your Own Tower - Learn how to select a site, pick the right tower, get construction approval, order all the components, and actually install your own communications tower. Also in this presentation the attendee will discover how to select the proper cell structure to cover those areas of interest to the WISP. Site selection based on coverage area desired, interference from competitors, and much more will be discussed. Panelists: Jeremy Anthony Kinsey - CEO Co Founder, Bella Mia, Inc (Mia.Net) Moderator: TBA Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 10:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question That would have been Rick Kunze. http://www.do-it-yourself-tower.com/ Where is he, anyway? I haven't heard from him in a long itme... - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 10:35 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question Note, At WISPCON II, I think it was Jeremy, that did a session about his experience installing a 200ft self standing tower, that he got put up for $25k, all costs included. (allthough that is the lowest i've ever seen reported) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Eric Rogers ecrog...@precisionds.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 7:36 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question That seems awful cheap to me...I would expect at least $50k or more. A 200' self-supporting tower cost me about $65k and I did all of the leg work. If you have a tower crew, I would expect $15k for labor, $2000 for earthwork, and I don't know the concrete requirements so maybe $1000, $3000-5000 for fencing, $7000 for lighting, $5k for paperwork and variances (don't forget to notify the FAA, EPA, and some Indian preservation group). I figure roughly $33k just for construction. That is not including a building and steel (tower price). The paperwork is the hardest part to get completed. It isn't hard work, just busy work. Thanks, Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 3:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower erection question So more or less a turn key tower? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: chris cooper ccoo...@intelliwave.com Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 10:22 AM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] tower erection question Ok, pretty general question I know, but does anyone have a ball park figure for erection of a 300' Rohn 65G - earthwork, steel and construction?
[WISPA] Winter connectivity issues
I have 4 tower locations, only one seems to be having issues. Last week, then today I have a few customers on one tower having slow connection issues. High ping times from less than 1 ms to 4-500ms with packet loss. The one complaining customer has a -56 @ client end and -60 @ AP. The common denominator is weather, it is currently about 10 deg F and we had some, not a lot of freezing rain last night. This tower is running a RB 433 w/ XR2 and HPol omni. New in spring due to lightning storm. The only time I experienced issues last year was with heavy icing. Any thought? Would you think it's the ice or maybe freezing moisture in the enclosure? Mark in South central Missouri 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] Winter connectivity issues
The ones that seem to have issues are close and LOS the further ones seem to be ok. Mark -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 3:45 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Winter connectivity issues Are any of your links not line of sight? I have to back off power on some of my clients because in the summer they are fine but in the winter when the leaves fall off I get a lot of multi-path which causes poor performance. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 2:58 PM To: mikro...@mail.butchevans.com; wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Winter connectivity issues I have 4 tower locations, only one seems to be having issues. Last week, then today I have a few customers on one tower having slow connection issues. High ping times from less than 1 ms to 4-500ms with packet loss. The one complaining customer has a -56 @ client end and -60 @ AP. The common denominator is weather, it is currently about 10 deg F and we had some, not a lot of freezing rain last night. This tower is running a RB 433 w/ XR2 and HPol omni. New in spring due to lightning storm. The only time I experienced issues last year was with heavy icing. Any thought? Would you think it's the ice or maybe freezing moisture in the enclosure? Mark in South central Missouri 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] Winter connectivity issues
In my experience water in the connector makes the RSSI drop from mid -60s to -90s Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Mark McElvy mmce...@accubak.com wrote: The ones that seem to have issues are close and LOS the further ones seem to be ok. Mark -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 3:45 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Winter connectivity issues Are any of your links not line of sight? I have to back off power on some of my clients because in the summer they are fine but in the winter when the leaves fall off I get a lot of multi-path which causes poor performance. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 2:58 PM To: mikro...@mail.butchevans.com; wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Winter connectivity issues I have 4 tower locations, only one seems to be having issues. Last week, then today I have a few customers on one tower having slow connection issues. High ping times from less than 1 ms to 4-500ms with packet loss. The one complaining customer has a -56 @ client end and -60 @ AP. The common denominator is weather, it is currently about 10 deg F and we had some, not a lot of freezing rain last night. This tower is running a RB 433 w/ XR2 and HPol omni. New in spring due to lightning storm. The only time I experienced issues last year was with heavy icing. Any thought? Would you think it's the ice or maybe freezing moisture in the enclosure? Mark in South central Missouri 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/ 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] Winter connectivity issues
Signal levels are stable. Ping times are erratic and Customers complain of slow internet. PPPoE will not stay connected. Mark -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:00 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Winter connectivity issues In my experience water in the connector makes the RSSI drop from mid -60s to -90s Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Mark McElvy mmce...@accubak.com wrote: The ones that seem to have issues are close and LOS the further ones seem to be ok. Mark -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 3:45 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Winter connectivity issues Are any of your links not line of sight? I have to back off power on some of my clients because in the summer they are fine but in the winter when the leaves fall off I get a lot of multi-path which causes poor performance. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 2:58 PM To: mikro...@mail.butchevans.com; wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Winter connectivity issues I have 4 tower locations, only one seems to be having issues. Last week, then today I have a few customers on one tower having slow connection issues. High ping times from less than 1 ms to 4-500ms with packet loss. The one complaining customer has a -56 @ client end and -60 @ AP. The common denominator is weather, it is currently about 10 deg F and we had some, not a lot of freezing rain last night. This tower is running a RB 433 w/ XR2 and HPol omni. New in spring due to lightning storm. The only time I experienced issues last year was with heavy icing. Any thought? Would you think it's the ice or maybe freezing moisture in the enclosure? Mark in South central Missouri 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/ 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] Vecima 3.65 update
its all part of how the Wimax MAC works ..., Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 7:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update Actually the ping times went to 60ms with those changes. Travis John Scrivner wrote: Switch to 1/4 carrier and 10 ms. I bet it clears up. Scriv On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net wrote: We tried them all... best effort, non-polling real time, and polling real time. All the same latency. We are also using 5ms frame and 1/8 carrier. Travis Gino Villarini wrote: What QOS are you using on that conenction? Berst effort? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update Hi, Ok... we mounted the base station yesterday and put up the CPE at our office this morning. It's a 7 mile shot, and we have a -77 RSSI running at 16QAM. We are able to get up to 6Mbps x 6Mbps right now (can't do more because the base station has a limit of 6Mbps per CPE set right now). Here is my biggest complaint with the bandwidth/speed/latency. The BEST possible latency we can get is 35ms. This is with absolutely no traffic, and just a normal Windows XP ping. This is not acceptable for this type of equipment. I know people have talked about Redline being about the same. Any other quick tests anyone wants to see before we take the CPE down? 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/ 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:
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update
So did you get your latency down from 30-40ms? I remember you were having the same problem a few weeks ago with the Redline stuff? Travis Gino Villarini wrote: its all part of how the Wimax MAC works ..., Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 7:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update Actually the ping times went to 60ms with those changes. Travis John Scrivner wrote: Switch to 1/4 carrier and 10 ms. I bet it clears up. Scriv On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net mailto:t...@ida.net wrote: We tried them all... best effort, non-polling real time, and polling real time. All the same latency. We are also using 5ms frame and 1/8 carrier. Travis Gino Villarini wrote: What QOS are you using on that conenction? Berst effort? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 update Hi, Ok... we mounted the base station yesterday and put up the CPE at our office this morning. It's a 7 mile shot, and we have a -77 RSSI running at 16QAM. We are able to get up to 6Mbps x 6Mbps right now (can't do more because the base station has a limit of 6Mbps per CPE set right now). Here is my biggest complaint with the bandwidth/speed/latency. The BEST possible latency we can get is 35ms. This is with absolutely no traffic, and just a normal Windows XP ping. This is not acceptable for this type of equipment. I know people have talked about Redline being about the same. Any other quick tests anyone wants to see before we take the CPE down? 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/ 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:
Re: [WISPA] [Mikrotik] Winter connectivity issues
Multiple CPEs on the same AP? On 12/15/08, Mark McElvy mmce...@accubak.com wrote: Signal levels are stable. Ping times are erratic and Customers complain of slow internet. PPPoE will not stay connected. Mark -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:00 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Winter connectivity issues In my experience water in the connector makes the RSSI drop from mid -60s to -90s Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Mark McElvy mmce...@accubak.com wrote: The ones that seem to have issues are close and LOS the further ones seem to be ok. Mark -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 3:45 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Winter connectivity issues Are any of your links not line of sight? I have to back off power on some of my clients because in the summer they are fine but in the winter when the leaves fall off I get a lot of multi-path which causes poor performance. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 2:58 PM To: mikro...@mail.butchevans.com; wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Winter connectivity issues I have 4 tower locations, only one seems to be having issues. Last week, then today I have a few customers on one tower having slow connection issues. High ping times from less than 1 ms to 4-500ms with packet loss. The one complaining customer has a -56 @ client end and -60 @ AP. The common denominator is weather, it is currently about 10 deg F and we had some, not a lot of freezing rain last night. This tower is running a RB 433 w/ XR2 and HPol omni. New in spring due to lightning storm. The only time I experienced issues last year was with heavy icing. Any thought? Would you think it's the ice or maybe freezing moisture in the enclosure? Mark in South central Missouri 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/ 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/ -- Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer 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:
Re: [WISPA] [Mikrotik] Winter connectivity issues
12, all Tranzeo CPQ except one. Mark -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 6:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Mikrotik] Winter connectivity issues Multiple CPEs on the same AP? On 12/15/08, Mark McElvy mmce...@accubak.com wrote: Signal levels are stable. Ping times are erratic and Customers complain of slow internet. PPPoE will not stay connected. Mark -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:00 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Winter connectivity issues In my experience water in the connector makes the RSSI drop from mid -60s to -90s Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Mark McElvy mmce...@accubak.com wrote: The ones that seem to have issues are close and LOS the further ones seem to be ok. Mark -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 3:45 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Winter connectivity issues Are any of your links not line of sight? I have to back off power on some of my clients because in the summer they are fine but in the winter when the leaves fall off I get a lot of multi-path which causes poor performance. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 2:58 PM To: mikro...@mail.butchevans.com; wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Winter connectivity issues I have 4 tower locations, only one seems to be having issues. Last week, then today I have a few customers on one tower having slow connection issues. High ping times from less than 1 ms to 4-500ms with packet loss. The one complaining customer has a -56 @ client end and -60 @ AP. The common denominator is weather, it is currently about 10 deg F and we had some, not a lot of freezing rain last night. This tower is running a RB 433 w/ XR2 and HPol omni. New in spring due to lightning storm. The only time I experienced issues last year was with heavy icing. Any thought? Would you think it's the ice or maybe freezing moisture in the enclosure? Mark in South central Missouri 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/ 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/ -- Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer
Re: [WISPA] [Mikrotik] Winter connectivity issues
All of the CPEs on that one AP? Or all of the Tranzeo CPEs on that AP? On 12/15/08, Mark McElvy mmce...@accubak.com wrote: 12, all Tranzeo CPQ except one. Mark -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 6:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Mikrotik] Winter connectivity issues Multiple CPEs on the same AP? On 12/15/08, Mark McElvy mmce...@accubak.com wrote: Signal levels are stable. Ping times are erratic and Customers complain of slow internet. PPPoE will not stay connected. Mark -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:00 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Winter connectivity issues In my experience water in the connector makes the RSSI drop from mid -60s to -90s Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Mark McElvy mmce...@accubak.com wrote: The ones that seem to have issues are close and LOS the further ones seem to be ok. Mark -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 3:45 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Winter connectivity issues Are any of your links not line of sight? I have to back off power on some of my clients because in the summer they are fine but in the winter when the leaves fall off I get a lot of multi-path which causes poor performance. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 2:58 PM To: mikro...@mail.butchevans.com; wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Winter connectivity issues I have 4 tower locations, only one seems to be having issues. Last week, then today I have a few customers on one tower having slow connection issues. High ping times from less than 1 ms to 4-500ms with packet loss. The one complaining customer has a -56 @ client end and -60 @ AP. The common denominator is weather, it is currently about 10 deg F and we had some, not a lot of freezing rain last night. This tower is running a RB 433 w/ XR2 and HPol omni. New in spring due to lightning storm. The only time I experienced issues last year was with heavy icing. Any thought? Would you think it's the ice or maybe freezing moisture in the enclosure? Mark in South central Missouri 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/ 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/ -- Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who
Re: [WISPA] [Mikrotik] Winter connectivity issues
There are 12 clients total on the AP -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 7:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Mikrotik] Winter connectivity issues All of the CPEs on that one AP? Or all of the Tranzeo CPEs on that AP? On 12/15/08, Mark McElvy mmce...@accubak.com wrote: 12, all Tranzeo CPQ except one. Mark -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 6:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Mikrotik] Winter connectivity issues Multiple CPEs on the same AP? On 12/15/08, Mark McElvy mmce...@accubak.com wrote: Signal levels are stable. Ping times are erratic and Customers complain of slow internet. PPPoE will not stay connected. Mark -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:00 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Winter connectivity issues In my experience water in the connector makes the RSSI drop from mid -60s to -90s Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Mark McElvy mmce...@accubak.com wrote: The ones that seem to have issues are close and LOS the further ones seem to be ok. Mark -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 3:45 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Winter connectivity issues Are any of your links not line of sight? I have to back off power on some of my clients because in the summer they are fine but in the winter when the leaves fall off I get a lot of multi-path which causes poor performance. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 2:58 PM To: mikro...@mail.butchevans.com; wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Winter connectivity issues I have 4 tower locations, only one seems to be having issues. Last week, then today I have a few customers on one tower having slow connection issues. High ping times from less than 1 ms to 4-500ms with packet loss. The one complaining customer has a -56 @ client end and -60 @ AP. The common denominator is weather, it is currently about 10 deg F and we had some, not a lot of freezing rain last night. This tower is running a RB 433 w/ XR2 and HPol omni. New in spring due to lightning storm. The only time I experienced issues last year was with heavy icing. Any thought? Would you think it's the ice or maybe freezing moisture in the enclosure? Mark in South central Missouri 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/ 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
Re: [WISPA] [Mikrotik] Winter connectivity issues
Tried rebooting the AP and changing channels yet? Do you have the capability to try a CPE of your own in a good position both near and far from the tower? On 12/15/08, Mark McElvy mmce...@accubak.com wrote: There are 12 clients total on the AP -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 7:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Mikrotik] Winter connectivity issues All of the CPEs on that one AP? Or all of the Tranzeo CPEs on that AP? On 12/15/08, Mark McElvy mmce...@accubak.com wrote: 12, all Tranzeo CPQ except one. Mark -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 6:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Mikrotik] Winter connectivity issues Multiple CPEs on the same AP? On 12/15/08, Mark McElvy mmce...@accubak.com wrote: Signal levels are stable. Ping times are erratic and Customers complain of slow internet. PPPoE will not stay connected. Mark -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:00 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Winter connectivity issues In my experience water in the connector makes the RSSI drop from mid -60s to -90s Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Mark McElvy mmce...@accubak.com wrote: The ones that seem to have issues are close and LOS the further ones seem to be ok. Mark -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 3:45 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Winter connectivity issues Are any of your links not line of sight? I have to back off power on some of my clients because in the summer they are fine but in the winter when the leaves fall off I get a lot of multi-path which causes poor performance. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 2:58 PM To: mikro...@mail.butchevans.com; wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Winter connectivity issues I have 4 tower locations, only one seems to be having issues. Last week, then today I have a few customers on one tower having slow connection issues. High ping times from less than 1 ms to 4-500ms with packet loss. The one complaining customer has a -56 @ client end and -60 @ AP. The common denominator is weather, it is currently about 10 deg F and we had some, not a lot of freezing rain last night. This tower is running a RB 433 w/ XR2 and HPol omni. New in spring due to lightning storm. The only time I experienced issues last year was with heavy icing. Any thought? Would you think it's the ice or maybe freezing moisture in the enclosure? Mark in South central Missouri 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/ 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] Tranzeo TR902 missing features
I started using Tranzeo for 900MHz a few months back. When they work, they seem to do pretty well. But I'm having trouble debugging them. I haven't found a method for the following, maybe I'm missing something? - login to the client (or even AP) radio, use ping to check connectivity out to the net - requires web interface, so I don't have any method to connect thru the AP to the client when using NAT (ssh?) - ping watchdog feature - bandwidth test between the AP CPE My other radios are mostly StarOS, so I'm spoiled by the more advanced features. thanks 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] SkyWi Sues Qwest for Racketeering Monopolistic Practices
I wish someone would beat them in court.
We're trying to beat them in the marketplace:
http://www.oregonfast.net/gofast/Radio/09-17-08%20fire%20your%20phone%20company%20mixed.mp3
George
Ron Harden wrote:
That worked...thx George. This is another example of the Bells flexing
their anti-competitive muscle. :(
-Original Message-
From: George Rogato [mailto:wi...@oregonfast.net]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:15 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] SkyWi Sues Qwest for Racketeering Monopolistic
Practices
Ron
Try this one:
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2008/12/09/3844370.htm
I think market watch url might have some session limitations.
George
Ron Harden wrote:
George: When I click on the link that you sent I get a Market Watch
header,
but a document not found message in the body of the narrative.
FYI...Ron
-Original Message-
From: George Rogato [mailto:wi...@oregonfast.net]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 11:42 AM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] SkyWi Sues Qwest for Racketeering Monopolistic
Practices
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/SkyWi-Sues-Qwest-Racketeering-Monopoli
stic/story.aspx?guid={4118C3E4-CBC0-4B7B-ABA0-9E041B08A68A}
Think they will win?
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/
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] Tranzeo TR902 missing features
Those among many other advanced things are why I am using Mikrotik over Tranzeo on the software aspect. Please hear our plea, Tranzeo! On 12/15/08, John Valenti vale...@lir.msu.edu wrote: I started using Tranzeo for 900MHz a few months back. When they work, they seem to do pretty well. But I'm having trouble debugging them. I haven't found a method for the following, maybe I'm missing something? - login to the client (or even AP) radio, use ping to check connectivity out to the net - requires web interface, so I don't have any method to connect thru the AP to the client when using NAT (ssh?) - ping watchdog feature - bandwidth test between the AP CPE My other radios are mostly StarOS, so I'm spoiled by the more advanced features. thanks 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/ -- Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer 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] Colored Lanyards
I'd like to pick up some new nylon web lanyards for tower work but was hoping to get something other than the common yellow. I think it'd be an extra layer of safety to have different colored lanyards - if they're all the same color it's easier to get them mixed up which one you're clipping or unclipping. Any links, I can't find them at my normal stops? Thanks. `S 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] Survey Comments: 2. Do you see value in raising WISPA feesto allow for more efficient lobbying efforts with the FCC andother Government Entities
Comments inline: 9. I'm conflicted on this. I'm not sure WISPA is having any real effect, but I'm not sure they are not. [We believe we had a major impact in the TV Whitespaces NPRM and outcome, it has taught us the importance of strong legal counsel in Washington DC and it has assisted us in talking to the right people.] I know I'll miss some things here, but lets see what I can come up with off the top of my head: CALEA standard. WISPA has the ONLY free to everyone standard that's made it through the whole process. We worked directly with the FBI on our standard. There are standards out there that the FBI is said to be fighting against. Form 477 FAQ #8. That one is the direct result of a group of WISPs that met with the Form 477 folks to help clarify exactly what WISPs are expeted to do and how we're to do it. Sure saved me a LOT of time and heartache. Clarification of the new updated FCC rules after the last major upgrade to them. Got the FCC to agree that a routed group of individual AP's could fall under the same higher powered 2.4ghz rules as active antennas. Too bad no one built and certified a system of 8 or 10 ap's with very narrow sectors (how about 24db grids :-). Did you guys know that we CAN use more than 4 watts at the AP's if the systems are designed right and are certified as such? WISPA got that interpretation of the rules done. Worked the Whitespaces issue for 4 years. It tried to die a natural death several times. We kept after it every chance we got. Done multiple training sessions for FCC staff. (we teach them what really goes on out in the world.) 10. The only way we are going to be heard is if we have a full time presence just like the big boys. [In process since July!] Not true. We're heard every time we open our mouths. They (the FCC) LOVE to hear from us. We are the guys in the trenches. We're the ones with the bloody knuckles. They know that. I've never been turned down for a meeting at the FCC, I've met with all of the commissioners but one. I've had meetings with the chairman's office. In fact I met with Martin back when he was still a commissioner. Got the pictures to prove it :-). None of this is because of me or anyone I know. It's because of who we are within the internet industry. 11. I feel the dues should be based on a WISP's subscriber count. Vendor dues should be based on a member's annual revenues or some other metric. [That is one of the options we are looking at.] I said that since before we even were WISPA. 12. Can't agree to raising the price when I don't know the current price. [$250 annually] 13. No, but I would pay more for stuff that I can reach out and touch. Buying groups, documents, passworded site with super vault filled with treasures. [We are currently developing a members only section on the website where these documents can be stored. We will also be developing further member discounts with our vendors over the next few months. There are already some discounts listed on the http://www.wispa.org/?page_id=256 Vendor Discounts page on the website.] Don't forget what WISPA's mission is. Rick, is the mission statement right at the top of the home page yet? 14. I would rather see income rise because of membership increases before raising the dues. [I agree, however, after 4 years and some major current lobbying efforts and a need for an Executive director or staff, we have reached a level where we need to reassess our dues structure to achieve all the desires of our members] 15. only slightly, since it tends to drive out the smaller startups! [We are very aware of this, it is always at the forefront of our thought processes] 16. I think they should remain the same. 17. Bring forth products and services, then take a cut of them to fund lobbying efforts. [This is also something we are considering] 18. I would need to see more specific examples of how additional funding is needed to achieve tangible goals. [See above, if this doesn't answer your questions, email me offlist] 19. actually this should be unknown or N/A as I am not fully aware of WISPAs lobbying efforts. [See above] 20. I think that indepth lobbying that can be effective is critical. WISPA has shown massive progress and influence on the process and anything supporting those continued efforts would be well received. Can I just donate money toward lobbying and not join? [Thank you for your encouragement. Of course, email me offlist and we can take care of your request but why would you not join?] I agree with Rick here. The money (more importantly the time) always helps. But part of what adds weight to our statements is numbers. The more members we have the more people we can speak for
Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65
On to the CPE: This is one of the worst designs of a CPE that I have ever seen. The entire unit is made by Tranzeo and looks just like their normal 2.4 CPE. It has the bar of lights on the top showing Power, LAN, RSSI, etc. The mounting bracket is the L bracket that bolts to the back and has a U-bolt and clamp to hook to the pipe. The biggest problem is how the ethernet cable connects. It has the white cover plate that goes over the RJ-45 connector that has to be bolted to the back of the radio... the problem is, the pass-thru connector is not big enough to allow an already crimped RJ-45 cable to pass thru... meaning, you have to run the cable thru the white plastic thing, then crimp it, then plug it in, and then screw the nuts down holding the white cover. If you ever have to replace the radio with something different, you have to cut the cable and then re-crimp. Also, I can guarantee that water is going to get into the RJ-45 as it is on the back of the radio and the water will always be trying to get into the white cover and then will just flow right into the RJ-45. I have attached a picture that is 99% the same as this unit (except this unit is smaller than the picture). The other issue is the PoE injector that comes with the unit. This is the worst PoE that I have ever seen. I don't understand why they can't use a grounded PoE that doesn't require a separate ground wire. Use the ground built into the electrical wiring that is already there (like the PacWireless PoE units). Attached is a picture of the PoE that was supplied. I've been using the Tranzeo units for at least 3 years now. They are all too often mounted right under the eve of the house. So far no water issues. As for the POE ground wire. Ever open one up and look at what that ground wire plugs into? I don't even bother with them as they don't go anywhere that connects to the unit outside! sigh marlon 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] U.S. Adults Choosing Internet Over Sex
http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/reporting/showArticle.jhtml?art icleID=212500440subSection=News Thought this article was pretty funny reading... So wanted to share it.. / Eje 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] U.S. Adults Choosing Internet Over Sex
The wife's in bed and I'm still...responding to message on this listserv =/ -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Eje Gustafsson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 11:57 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] U.S. Adults Choosing Internet Over Sex http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/reporting/showArticle.jhtml?art icleID=212500440subSection=News Thought this article was pretty funny reading... So wanted to share it.. / Eje 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 is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at 630-344-1586. 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] Survey Comments: 2. Do you see value in raising WISPA feesto allow for more efficient lobbying efforts with the FCC andother Government Entities
Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Got the FCC to agree that a routed group of individual AP's could fall under the same higher powered 2.4ghz rules as active antennas. Too bad no one built and certified a system of 8 or 10 ap's with very narrow sectors (how about 24db grids :-). Did you guys know that we CAN use more than 4 watts at the AP's if the systems are designed right and are certified as such? WISPA got that interpretation of the rules done. I remember reading about this, but never managed to find out how narrow the beams would have to be. If 60-90 deg would work, there are MANY good ways to do it 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/
