[WISPA] RUS Availability
http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/commconnect.htm Is that because of the Farm Bill vs. the ARRA? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com 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] Wimax 802.16d v 802.16e
I'm researching these two technologies and Wimax in general, does anyone have any firsthand experience with the two current different types of Wimax, or references to the differences in the two different types of technologies for broadband fixed rural deployments? Regards Michael Baird 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] RUS Availability
The Community Connect program has nothing to do with ARRA, and is seperate. (I believe from the Farm bill?) It has been an ongoing program for years. It is one of the true programs for expanding broadband to the MOST RURAL portions of America, and been highly successful for that purpose. Then there is ARRA funds, the program for the rest of us. :-) So that we will have opportunity to win grants for areas that have more than 500 people and have average incomes higher than the poverty level. 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: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:08 AM Subject: [WISPA] RUS Availability http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/commconnect.htm Is that because of the Farm Bill vs. the ARRA? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com 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] RUS Availability
Tom's right, Community Connect is from the 2008 Farm Bill. The requirements this year are practically identical - the ONLY significant changes in the guidance that I see are in how they've structured the guidance on matching funds and in-kind, and in that case it's just a change in how they presented the same material. Also, the eligible costs section has been clarified to show the maximum amounts are included on page 19 (it was only shown on page 33 in the formal rule section of last year's documents). InLine vickie edwards, MPA | Grant Specialist InLine Connections Solutions Through Technology 600 Lakeshore Pkwy Birmingham AL, 35209 205-278-8106 [p] 205-941-1934[f] vedwa...@inline.com www.InLine.com All Quotes from InLine are only valid for 30 days. This message and any attached files may contain confidential information and are intended solely for the message recipient. If you are not the message recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 8:32 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] RUS Availability The Community Connect program has nothing to do with ARRA, and is seperate. (I believe from the Farm bill?) It has been an ongoing program for years. It is one of the true programs for expanding broadband to the MOST RURAL portions of America, and been highly successful for that purpose. Then there is ARRA funds, the program for the rest of us. :-) So that we will have opportunity to win grants for areas that have more than 500 people and have average incomes higher than the poverty level. 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: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:08 AM Subject: [WISPA] RUS Availability http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/commconnect.htm Is that because of the Farm Bill vs. the ARRA? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com 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] Sprint Wholesale
DOH, I confused 404 with 414 and 678 with 608 oh well. He's the right guy, thanks. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:24 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint Wholesale Thanks... and with those NPAs, he isn't far from me. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Matt Liotta mlio...@r337.com Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 4:48 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint Wholesale Mike Tataris Specialized Account Manager - WSG Phone: 404-649-1521 Cell: 678-478-9132 Fax: 800-329-6882 Email: mike.tata...@sprint.com On Apr 20, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Does anyone have a contact at Sprint wholesale. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com 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] DFS Radar Question
The only good answer to combat DFS is to use directional PTP antennas with good F/B ratios. I'd give 5.4G back to the FCC in a heartbeat, if they gave us 5.3Ghz back without DFS and low power requirements. If you ask me Either 5.3 radars or 5.4 radars should be forced to upgrade to the other band, and free up the other :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Adam Goodman a...@wispring.com To: sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 4:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question I had some trouble with radar (think it was radar) last year. Interferences could be from many sources. It sa problem because you can't just go sit there for a couple of weeks with a spectrum analyzer listening for noise. It would be nice if there was a reasonably priced logger. Or with Internet connectivity. All this is probably a pipe dream as I have never seen anything with such functionality. On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.com wrote: Anyone know of a radio that can just listen passively and scan through channels and report back on radar signals heard on what frequencies? That would be a great tool to have to scope out certain areas of interest to know ahead of time what radar DFS issues might be present... Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Blair Davis the...@wmwisp.net Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 4:30 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Gell Cell? 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] is this router overloaded?
Eje, The way DFS is designed in MT it will never be able to get certified. Pleasse elaborate, thats a strong statement. If it were true it would means that the DFS limit was hardware or 802.11a protocol based, because software ALWAYS has the option to be changed and modified to meet a specific requirements. I agree that MT's current DFS2 support would not pass FCC certification. But I don't see why it couldn't be expanded to be certifiable. 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, April 20, 2009 4:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] is this router overloaded? And 5.2 is not allowed for outdoor usage. So Franks unit is an indoor unit I would suspect he is suffering from multipath reflections. Besides on the radar stuff.. The way DFS is designed in MT it will never be able to get certified. First of it must continuously look for and detect radar not just when it first enable the interface. Secondly it at least did a horrible job in actually detecting radar signatures. Besides 5.2 is not part of the band you can use even with a certified radar detecting device. / Eje -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Burgess - LTI Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 3:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] is this router overloaded? Part of the 5.2 band. All of the radar patters are in MT, just not certified. * --- Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer WISPA Board Member - wispa.org http://www.wispa.org/ Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services WISPA Vendor Member* *Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net http://www.linktechs.net/ */LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training/* http://www.linktechs.net/onlinetraining.asp The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended only for the person(s) or entity/entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited, If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Gino Villarini wrote: 5180.hmmm!!! Not to bust anyones head but you are using an uncertified device on an illegal channel Sent from my Motorola Startac... On Apr 20, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Gino - Top right corner. Did the CPU just jump or has it casually been like that? I've never had 5 radios in any board, I don't know if that would cause a lot of usage or not. Most any MT box I've seen is 5% CPU. A lot of NAT as was mentioned would be the first place I'd look. 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, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Kevin Neal ke...@safelink.net wrote: Is this doing any NAT? Is connection tracking enabled? Do you have all unneeded packages disabled? We have a few RB600's out there and they do fine for the most part, we don't do any wireless on the 600's and all of them have the 564 daughterboard in them. -Kevin Neal -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 12:50 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] is this router overloaded? I have a RB600 here that I've taken a screenshot of. No interfaces are bridged, everything is routed and I'm noticing some lag in the traffic that passes though this device during peak use. I suspect that the 41 RIP routes might have something to do with it as actual throughput isn't that much sometimes topping out around 8Mbps. Just want to hear from others and if there is any suggestions on how I might speed this up let me know. CPU usage on it is around 40-50%. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com 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
Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question
With your calculator, take your front to back attenuation for your dish (or side) and apply 41 watts to it from direction chosen and let me know what you end up with lol... You can't possibly combat it at all cause if your on the same freq your going to get a visit from some people that have been in better moods asking why they have a stripe on their radar screen... It don't take a lot of power when their receive it about 60db gain with 1 deg sweeping dish that listens in every direction that is made to hear a reflection off a rain drop or bird at 200 miles... You were kidding right Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:13 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question The only good answer to combat DFS is to use directional PTP antennas with good F/B ratios. I'd give 5.4G back to the FCC in a heartbeat, if they gave us 5.3Ghz back without DFS and low power requirements. If you ask me Either 5.3 radars or 5.4 radars should be forced to upgrade to the other band, and free up the other :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Adam Goodman a...@wispring.com To: sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 4:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question I had some trouble with radar (think it was radar) last year. Interferences could be from many sources. It sa problem because you can't just go sit there for a couple of weeks with a spectrum analyzer listening for noise. It would be nice if there was a reasonably priced logger. Or with Internet connectivity. All this is probably a pipe dream as I have never seen anything with such functionality. On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.com wrote: Anyone know of a radio that can just listen passively and scan through channels and report back on radar signals heard on what frequencies? That would be a great tool to have to scope out certain areas of interest to know ahead of time what radar DFS issues might be present... Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Blair Davis the...@wmwisp.net Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 4:30 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Gell Cell? 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] is this router overloaded?
Besides the fact that MT should be smarter than to work on a feature that was not possible to achieve from the beginning... Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:19 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] is this router overloaded? Eje, The way DFS is designed in MT it will never be able to get certified. Pleasse elaborate, thats a strong statement. If it were true it would means that the DFS limit was hardware or 802.11a protocol based, because software ALWAYS has the option to be changed and modified to meet a specific requirements. I agree that MT's current DFS2 support would not pass FCC certification. But I don't see why it couldn't be expanded to be certifiable. 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, April 20, 2009 4:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] is this router overloaded? And 5.2 is not allowed for outdoor usage. So Franks unit is an indoor unit I would suspect he is suffering from multipath reflections. Besides on the radar stuff.. The way DFS is designed in MT it will never be able to get certified. First of it must continuously look for and detect radar not just when it first enable the interface. Secondly it at least did a horrible job in actually detecting radar signatures. Besides 5.2 is not part of the band you can use even with a certified radar detecting device. / Eje -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Burgess - LTI Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 3:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] is this router overloaded? Part of the 5.2 band. All of the radar patters are in MT, just not certified. * --- Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer WISPA Board Member - wispa.org http://www.wispa.org/ Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services WISPA Vendor Member* *Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net http://www.linktechs.net/ */LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training/* http://www.linktechs.net/onlinetraining.asp The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended only for the person(s) or entity/entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited, If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Gino Villarini wrote: 5180.hmmm!!! Not to bust anyones head but you are using an uncertified device on an illegal channel Sent from my Motorola Startac... On Apr 20, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Gino - Top right corner. Did the CPU just jump or has it casually been like that? I've never had 5 radios in any board, I don't know if that would cause a lot of usage or not. Most any MT box I've seen is 5% CPU. A lot of NAT as was mentioned would be the first place I'd look. 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, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Kevin Neal ke...@safelink.net wrote: Is this doing any NAT? Is connection tracking enabled? Do you have all unneeded packages disabled? We have a few RB600's out there and they do fine for the most part, we don't do any wireless on the 600's and all of them have the 564 daughterboard in them. -Kevin Neal -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 12:50 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] is this router overloaded? I have a RB600 here that I've taken a screenshot of. No interfaces are bridged, everything is routed and I'm noticing some lag in the traffic that passes though this device during peak use. I suspect that the 41 RIP routes might have something to do with it as actual throughput isn't that much sometimes topping out around 8Mbps. Just want to hear from others and if there is any suggestions on how I might speed this up let me know. CPU usage on it is around 40-50%. Kurt Fankhauser
Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question
Is it military radar or weather radar that operates in these bands? If it is weather then we are lucky around here, our county is smack dab in the middle of the out of range zone for 3 different weather radars by about 60+ miles each. The National Weather Service is really interested in storm spotters in this area because of the lack of radar coverage. 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 Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question The only good answer to combat DFS is to use directional PTP antennas with good F/B ratios. I'd give 5.4G back to the FCC in a heartbeat, if they gave us 5.3Ghz back without DFS and low power requirements. If you ask me Either 5.3 radars or 5.4 radars should be forced to upgrade to the other band, and free up the other :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Adam Goodman a...@wispring.com To: sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 4:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question I had some trouble with radar (think it was radar) last year. Interferences could be from many sources. It sa problem because you can't just go sit there for a couple of weeks with a spectrum analyzer listening for noise. It would be nice if there was a reasonably priced logger. Or with Internet connectivity. All this is probably a pipe dream as I have never seen anything with such functionality. On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.com wrote: Anyone know of a radio that can just listen passively and scan through channels and report back on radar signals heard on what frequencies? That would be a great tool to have to scope out certain areas of interest to know ahead of time what radar DFS issues might be present... Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Blair Davis the...@wmwisp.net Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 4:30 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Gell Cell? 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] DFS Radar Question
You don't think your active transmitter can affect their weather radar? NOT Just because they have their gain tuned such that they can't hear a reflection off a baseball in your area doesn't mean your signal won't come booming in for them :) Mostly weather radar... And - remember - its just not the news stations in your area with radars // military installations, government establishments, airports, NOAA etc... the list goes on. Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:46 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question Is it military radar or weather radar that operates in these bands? If it is weather then we are lucky around here, our county is smack dab in the middle of the out of range zone for 3 different weather radars by about 60+ miles each. The National Weather Service is really interested in storm spotters in this area because of the lack of radar coverage. 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 Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question The only good answer to combat DFS is to use directional PTP antennas with good F/B ratios. I'd give 5.4G back to the FCC in a heartbeat, if they gave us 5.3Ghz back without DFS and low power requirements. If you ask me Either 5.3 radars or 5.4 radars should be forced to upgrade to the other band, and free up the other :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Adam Goodman a...@wispring.com To: sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 4:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question I had some trouble with radar (think it was radar) last year. Interferences could be from many sources. It sa problem because you can't just go sit there for a couple of weeks with a spectrum analyzer listening for noise. It would be nice if there was a reasonably priced logger. Or with Internet connectivity. All this is probably a pipe dream as I have never seen anything with such functionality. On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.com wrote: Anyone know of a radio that can just listen passively and scan through channels and report back on radar signals heard on what frequencies? That would be a great tool to have to scope out certain areas of interest to know ahead of time what radar DFS issues might be present... Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Blair Davis the...@wmwisp.net Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 4:30 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Gell Cell? 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:
[WISPA] Monitor a 24 volt battery
I need a means to monitor a 24 volt battery system in a remote area. I can open and close relays via cell phone. It can be digital or through a tone generator or second best would be IP. Any suggestions? Thanx NGL If you can read this Thank A Teacher. And if it's in English Thank A Soldier! 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] is this router overloaded?
Well as it stands to day it will not be able to because one of the requirements is continuously looking and detecting radar signatures. In their current implementation they only look for a short period after the interface been enabled but before it start transmitting. Next time it will look is if you change the interface settings or reboot the unit. DFS requires continuously checking and honestly I am not sure that 802.11 based hardware could do this without hardware modifications. But then I'm not a hardware engineer and not perfectly well versed with all requirements with the DFS protocol. I just know there are some people that tried to use MT to get a DFS certified solution and it failed to pass the requirements with the exception when it saw radar directly after the interface was enabled. From the looks of things it really never looks for radar signatures again after it gotten its initial good to go. Is it possible to change the functionality in MikroTik to comply with DFS2 requirements on a software level/driver level without hardware changes I do not know. Just that as it is today it is a clear no go. / Eje -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:19 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] is this router overloaded? Eje, The way DFS is designed in MT it will never be able to get certified. Pleasse elaborate, thats a strong statement. If it were true it would means that the DFS limit was hardware or 802.11a protocol based, because software ALWAYS has the option to be changed and modified to meet a specific requirements. I agree that MT's current DFS2 support would not pass FCC certification. But I don't see why it couldn't be expanded to be certifiable. 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, April 20, 2009 4:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] is this router overloaded? And 5.2 is not allowed for outdoor usage. So Franks unit is an indoor unit I would suspect he is suffering from multipath reflections. Besides on the radar stuff.. The way DFS is designed in MT it will never be able to get certified. First of it must continuously look for and detect radar not just when it first enable the interface. Secondly it at least did a horrible job in actually detecting radar signatures. Besides 5.2 is not part of the band you can use even with a certified radar detecting device. / Eje -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Burgess - LTI Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 3:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] is this router overloaded? Part of the 5.2 band. All of the radar patters are in MT, just not certified. * --- Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer WISPA Board Member - wispa.org http://www.wispa.org/ Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services WISPA Vendor Member* *Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net http://www.linktechs.net/ */LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training/* http://www.linktechs.net/onlinetraining.asp The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended only for the person(s) or entity/entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited, If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Gino Villarini wrote: 5180.hmmm!!! Not to bust anyones head but you are using an uncertified device on an illegal channel Sent from my Motorola Startac... On Apr 20, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Gino - Top right corner. Did the CPU just jump or has it casually been like that? I've never had 5 radios in any board, I don't know if that would cause a lot of usage or not. Most any MT box I've seen is 5% CPU. A lot of NAT as was mentioned would be the first place I'd look. 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, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Kevin Neal ke...@safelink.net wrote: Is this doing any NAT? Is connection tracking enabled? Do you have all unneeded packages disabled? We have a few RB600's out there and they do fine for the most part, we don't do any wireless on the 600's and all of them
Re: [WISPA] Monitor a 24 volt battery
Some Mikrotik boards can do this and you have a remote network sniffer to boot ;) Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: NGL n...@ngl.net Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:00 AM To: wireless@wispa.org wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Monitor a 24 volt battery I need a means to monitor a 24 volt battery system in a remote area. I can open and close relays via cell phone. It can be digital or through a tone generator or second best would be IP. Any suggestions? Thanx NGL If you can read this Thank A Teacher. And if it's in English Thank A Soldier! 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] Monitor a 24 volt battery
Not using Mikrotik using Tranzeo. -- From: Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.com Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 8:09 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Monitor a 24 volt battery Some Mikrotik boards can do this and you have a remote network sniffer to boot ;) Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: NGL n...@ngl.net Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:00 AM To: wireless@wispa.org wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Monitor a 24 volt battery I need a means to monitor a 24 volt battery system in a remote area. I can open and close relays via cell phone. It can be digital or through a tone generator or second best would be IP. Any suggestions? Thanx NGL If you can read this Thank A Teacher. And if it's in English Thank A Soldier! 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] is this router overloaded?
Eje Gustafsson wrote: Well as it stands to day it will not be able to because one of the requirements is continuously looking and detecting radar signatures. In their current implementation they only look for a short period after the interface been enabled but before it start transmitting. Mikrotik already does some crazy things with multiple radios. Wonder if you could, say, put a second identical radio card in a system, hooked up to a second antenna, that does nothing but listen for radar... I know, it's probably impractical, but I bet it's not impossible. Is the DFS check done in their software, or is it done in hardware (built into the Atheros chip, say)? David Smith MVN.net 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] using multiple 5.3 cards in a Mikrotik
I have read numerous discussions on problems regarding self interference between two mPCI cards inserted in the same SBC, on same Freqs. Some reporting need for 40Mhz of center channel seperation. These are the factors... U.FL vs MMCX connectors One vs two Antenna Ports on a single mpci card (for example will second unused antenna port on card without pigtail hear noise. Does the second port need to be terminated?) Proximity of mPCI slots to each other. (ADI/Lucaya side by side versus MT 433 Stacked) High power embedded amped vs low power cards. Software thresholds vs not (min and max receive threshold and adapative noise immunity) Bleed over at card versus bleed over at antenna. (polarity won't help at card's port) Interference from Antenna port RF vs internal electronics generated RF noise (used to see this in PCs if HDD were to close to MB) One manufacturer's card vs another's. Receiver overload vs interference Unsubstantiated guestimates about this topic won;t really help because there are a LOT of variables contributing to the problem. MT433 or equivellent will most like work excellent if each card has a different freq such as 2.4, 5.8, and 900. Unless the problem is Receiver Overload. Where in that case maybe 2 CM9s could work better even if both on adjacent channel 5.3? If interference is based on Antenna placement, well thats easilly controllable by a field tech at time of installation. But what I'm concerned about is knowing that the radio system itself is made to be non-ninterfering internally. From a remote management perspective, its going to be painful tracking which radio systems have to be how far apart in channels to not interfere troubleshooting on-the-fly, without some baseline stats defined a head of time. So this brings me to three questions of higher relevence. 1) What do we need to do to guarantee that two cards can co-exist and be used on adjacenet channels without interference at the radio card hardware level (not including antenna placement factors that could allow intference) 2) Has anyone actually used a Spectrum Analyzer or Noise meter to actually measure the RF bleed between to mounted cards? With accurate results of what the interference levels are? 3) Would WISP members be interested in contributing to a small fund to pay someone to actually accurately measure the results for us? I'd like to specifically know for the 433 board. If using the higher quality MMCX w/ single antenna port cards (MT brand card), will 10Mhz of channel seperation be enough, to get two 5.3Ghz channels operating correctly? 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, April 20, 2009 4:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] is this router overloaded? And 5.2 is not allowed for outdoor usage. So Franks unit is an indoor unit I would suspect he is suffering from multipath reflections. Besides on the radar stuff.. The way DFS is designed in MT it will never be able to get certified. First of it must continuously look for and detect radar not just when it first enable the interface. Secondly it at least did a horrible job in actually detecting radar signatures. Besides 5.2 is not part of the band you can use even with a certified radar detecting device. / Eje -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Burgess - LTI Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 3:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] is this router overloaded? Part of the 5.2 band. All of the radar patters are in MT, just not certified. * --- Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer WISPA Board Member - wispa.org http://www.wispa.org/ Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services WISPA Vendor Member* *Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net http://www.linktechs.net/ */LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training/* http://www.linktechs.net/onlinetraining.asp The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended only for the person(s) or entity/entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited, If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Gino Villarini wrote: 5180.hmmm!!! Not to bust anyones head but you are using an uncertified device on an illegal channel Sent from my Motorola Startac... On Apr 20, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question
WE saw this recently here, The FCC and FAA sent a crew of about 10 perrsons to hunt down some rogue emissions that were afecting the local FAA Weather Radar. They were here for about 2 weeks. The local radar operated in 5610, had a rx opening from 5580 to 5640. The gain of the Weather antenna was 70db and the rx thershold -110, so imagine how a stray radio would interfere! They had a field day with local wispa using non FCC DFS Aproved gear in the band! They even got some stats on Canopy gear not trigerring correctly to the radar signature! They were going to Motorola with the info gathered here 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 Scott Carullo Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:52 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question You don't think your active transmitter can affect their weather radar? NOT Just because they have their gain tuned such that they can't hear a reflection off a baseball in your area doesn't mean your signal won't come booming in for them :) Mostly weather radar... And - remember - its just not the news stations in your area with radars // military installations, government establishments, airports, NOAA etc... the list goes on. Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:46 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question Is it military radar or weather radar that operates in these bands? If it is weather then we are lucky around here, our county is smack dab in the middle of the out of range zone for 3 different weather radars by about 60+ miles each. The National Weather Service is really interested in storm spotters in this area because of the lack of radar coverage. 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 Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question The only good answer to combat DFS is to use directional PTP antennas with good F/B ratios. I'd give 5.4G back to the FCC in a heartbeat, if they gave us 5.3Ghz back without DFS and low power requirements. If you ask me Either 5.3 radars or 5.4 radars should be forced to upgrade to the other band, and free up the other :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Adam Goodman a...@wispring.com To: sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 4:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question I had some trouble with radar (think it was radar) last year. Interferences could be from many sources. It sa problem because you can't just go sit there for a couple of weeks with a spectrum analyzer listening for noise. It would be nice if there was a reasonably priced logger. Or with Internet connectivity. All this is probably a pipe dream as I have never seen anything with such functionality. On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.com wrote: Anyone know of a radio that can just listen passively and scan through channels and report back on radar signals heard on what frequencies? That would be a great tool to have to scope out certain areas of interest to know ahead of time what radar DFS issues might be present... Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Blair Davis the...@wmwisp.net Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 4:30 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Gell Cell? 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!
Re: [WISPA] is this router overloaded?
Not so sure about the smart comment. Keep in mind it took the FCC until very recently to make up their mind how to properly test for radar. MikroTik have had the DFS feature in for some time (well before the DFS2 requirements) was even close to final iteration. When they had come out with their DFS feature even the big FCC test labs had no procedure in place to test DFS. So for seeing so early in their adaptation they got burnt. Interesting and smart question is rather why have they not come out with and updated version is it because it's not doable or are they just simply working on it. I do not know. /Eje Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.com Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:25:00 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] is this router overloaded? Besides the fact that MT should be smarter than to work on a feature that was not possible to achieve from the beginning... Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:19 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] is this router overloaded? Eje, The way DFS is designed in MT it will never be able to get certified. Pleasse elaborate, thats a strong statement. If it were true it would means that the DFS limit was hardware or 802.11a protocol based, because software ALWAYS has the option to be changed and modified to meet a specific requirements. I agree that MT's current DFS2 support would not pass FCC certification. But I don't see why it couldn't be expanded to be certifiable. 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, April 20, 2009 4:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] is this router overloaded? And 5.2 is not allowed for outdoor usage. So Franks unit is an indoor unit I would suspect he is suffering from multipath reflections. Besides on the radar stuff.. The way DFS is designed in MT it will never be able to get certified. First of it must continuously look for and detect radar not just when it first enable the interface. Secondly it at least did a horrible job in actually detecting radar signatures. Besides 5.2 is not part of the band you can use even with a certified radar detecting device. / Eje -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Burgess - LTI Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 3:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] is this router overloaded? Part of the 5.2 band. All of the radar patters are in MT, just not certified. * --- Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer WISPA Board Member - wispa.org http://www.wispa.org/ Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services WISPA Vendor Member* *Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net http://www.linktechs.net/ */LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training/* http://www.linktechs.net/onlinetraining.asp The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended only for the person(s) or entity/entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited, If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Gino Villarini wrote: 5180.hmmm!!! Not to bust anyones head but you are using an uncertified device on an illegal channel Sent from my Motorola Startac... On Apr 20, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Gino - Top right corner. Did the CPU just jump or has it casually been like that? I've never had 5 radios in any board, I don't know if that would cause a lot of usage or not. Most any MT box I've seen is 5% CPU. A lot of NAT as was mentioned would be the first place I'd look. 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, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Kevin Neal ke...@safelink.net wrote: Is this doing any NAT? Is connection tracking enabled? Do you have all unneeded packages disabled? We have a few RB600's out there and they do fine for the most part, we don't do any wireless on the
[WISPA] DFS on different size channels, and scanning?
With DFS2, many have referred to signaturesand patterns to detect to determined radar is heard. But it has also been stated, it had to be heard at a signal level of x (near -30). With 802.11a, a 20 Mhz channel can not decipher/hear 10Mhz channels, nor 10Mhz channels hear/decipher 20Mhz channels except as noise. Can DFS2 card features hear radar signatures regardless of whether card is set to 10 Mhz vs 20Mhz channel size. And if so, how come this is different than the above 802.11a situation? Anyone know the technical detail on how works. Does this have anything to do with why some Wifi OEM software/hardware can't be designed to pass DFS2 certification without periodic service disruption? The reason I'm asking this is If the Wifi card was capable of hearing Radar (a non-standard wifi signal) while actively transmitting on a wifi channel, or prior to a client CPE association, regardless of channel size, shouldn't it also be possible to For the wifi card receiver to hear other non-802.11a noise while not associated? How come manufacturers can;t make their software/hardware combos perform real spectrum scans, to pick up non-wifi devices, like Trango, Canopy and Alvarion can do? Is this a hardware limit? Or is it a Software development toolkit / Driver problem, not allowing access to those features of the hardware? Or a software OS problem that potentially could be added? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Michael Baird m...@tc3net.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:26 AM Subject: [WISPA] Wimax 802.16d v 802.16e I'm researching these two technologies and Wimax in general, does anyone have any firsthand experience with the two current different types of Wimax, or references to the differences in the two different types of technologies for broadband fixed rural deployments? Regards Michael Baird 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] using multiple 5.3 cards in a Mikrotik
Just a dumb question... If DFS is not certified on MT and is required for 5.3 operation how could you drum up support for planning something illegal? Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:40 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] using multiple 5.3 cards in a Mikrotik I have read numerous discussions on problems regarding self interference between two mPCI cards inserted in the same SBC, on same Freqs. Some reporting need for 40Mhz of center channel seperation. These are the factors... U.FL vs MMCX connectors One vs two Antenna Ports on a single mpci card (for example will second unused antenna port on card without pigtail hear noise. Does the second port need to be terminated?) Proximity of mPCI slots to each other. (ADI/Lucaya side by side versus MT 433 Stacked) High power embedded amped vs low power cards. Software thresholds vs not (min and max receive threshold and adapative noise immunity) Bleed over at card versus bleed over at antenna. (polarity won't help at card's port) Interference from Antenna port RF vs internal electronics generated RF noise (used to see this in PCs if HDD were to close to MB) One manufacturer's card vs another's. Receiver overload vs interference Unsubstantiated guestimates about this topic won;t really help because there are a LOT of variables contributing to the problem. MT433 or equivellent will most like work excellent if each card has a different freq such as 2.4, 5.8, and 900. Unless the problem is Receiver Overload. Where in that case maybe 2 CM9s could work better even if both on adjacent channel 5.3? If interference is based on Antenna placement, well thats easilly controllable by a field tech at time of installation. But what I'm concerned about is knowing that the radio system itself is made to be non-ninterfering internally. From a remote management perspective, its going to be painful tracking which radio systems have to be how far apart in channels to not interfere troubleshooting on-the-fly, without some baseline stats defined a head of time. So this brings me to three questions of higher relevence. 1) What do we need to do to guarantee that two cards can co-exist and be used on adjacenet channels without interference at the radio card hardware level (not including antenna placement factors that could allow intference) 2) Has anyone actually used a Spectrum Analyzer or Noise meter to actually measure the RF bleed between to mounted cards? With accurate results of what the interference levels are? 3) Would WISP members be interested in contributing to a small fund to pay someone to actually accurately measure the results for us? I'd like to specifically know for the 433 board. If using the higher quality MMCX w/ single antenna port cards (MT brand card), will 10Mhz of channel seperation be enough, to get two 5.3Ghz channels operating correctly? 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, April 20, 2009 4:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] is this router overloaded? And 5.2 is not allowed for outdoor usage. So Franks unit is an indoor unit I would suspect he is suffering from multipath reflections. Besides on the radar stuff.. The way DFS is designed in MT it will never be able to get certified. First of it must continuously look for and detect radar not just when it first enable the interface. Secondly it at least did a horrible job in actually detecting radar signatures. Besides 5.2 is not part of the band you can use even with a certified radar detecting device. / Eje -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Burgess - LTI Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 3:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] is this router overloaded? Part of the 5.2 band. All of the radar patters are in MT, just not certified. * --- Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer WISPA Board Member - wispa.org http://www.wispa.org/ Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services WISPA Vendor Member* *Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net http://www.linktechs.net/ */LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training/* http://www.linktechs.net/onlinetraining.asp The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended only for the person(s) or entity/entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
Re: [WISPA] using multiple 5.3 cards in a Mikrotik
I missed the part where he said anything about deploying it outdoors :-) Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Carullo Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] using multiple 5.3 cards in a Mikrotik Just a dumb question... If DFS is not certified on MT and is required for 5.3 operation how could you drum up support for planning something illegal? Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:40 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] using multiple 5.3 cards in a Mikrotik I have read numerous discussions on problems regarding self interference between two mPCI cards inserted in the same SBC, on same Freqs. Some reporting need for 40Mhz of center channel seperation. These are the factors... U.FL vs MMCX connectors One vs two Antenna Ports on a single mpci card (for example will second unused antenna port on card without pigtail hear noise. Does the second port need to be terminated?) Proximity of mPCI slots to each other. (ADI/Lucaya side by side versus MT 433 Stacked) High power embedded amped vs low power cards. Software thresholds vs not (min and max receive threshold and adapative noise immunity) Bleed over at card versus bleed over at antenna. (polarity won't help at card's port) Interference from Antenna port RF vs internal electronics generated RF noise (used to see this in PCs if HDD were to close to MB) One manufacturer's card vs another's. Receiver overload vs interference Unsubstantiated guestimates about this topic won;t really help because there are a LOT of variables contributing to the problem. MT433 or equivellent will most like work excellent if each card has a different freq such as 2.4, 5.8, and 900. Unless the problem is Receiver Overload. Where in that case maybe 2 CM9s could work better even if both on adjacent channel 5.3? If interference is based on Antenna placement, well thats easilly controllable by a field tech at time of installation. But what I'm concerned about is knowing that the radio system itself is made to be non-ninterfering internally. From a remote management perspective, its going to be painful tracking which radio systems have to be how far apart in channels to not interfere troubleshooting on-the-fly, without some baseline stats defined a head of time. So this brings me to three questions of higher relevence. 1) What do we need to do to guarantee that two cards can co-exist and be used on adjacenet channels without interference at the radio card hardware level (not including antenna placement factors that could allow intference) 2) Has anyone actually used a Spectrum Analyzer or Noise meter to actually measure the RF bleed between to mounted cards? With accurate results of what the interference levels are? 3) Would WISP members be interested in contributing to a small fund to pay someone to actually accurately measure the results for us? I'd like to specifically know for the 433 board. If using the higher quality MMCX w/ single antenna port cards (MT brand card), will 10Mhz of channel seperation be enough, to get two 5.3Ghz channels operating correctly? 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, April 20, 2009 4:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] is this router overloaded? And 5.2 is not allowed for outdoor usage. So Franks unit is an indoor unit I would suspect he is suffering from multipath reflections. Besides on the radar stuff.. The way DFS is designed in MT it will never be able to get certified. First of it must continuously look for and detect radar not just when it first enable the interface. Secondly it at least did a horrible job in actually detecting radar signatures. Besides 5.2 is not part of the band you can use even with a certified radar detecting device. / Eje -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Burgess - LTI Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 3:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] is this router overloaded? Part of the 5.2 band. All of the radar patters are in MT, just not certified. * --- Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer WISPA Board Member - wispa.org http://www.wispa.org/ Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services WISPA Vendor Member* *Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net http://www.linktechs.net/ */LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training/*
Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question
Scott, No, I was not kidding. I am NOT suggesting using gear that does not adequately support DFS2. But lets consider a TLink45 for example that is DFS2 certified. The DFS2 spec ONLY requires that you to listen and detect Radar, and not transmit IF Radar is HEARD. If radar is NOT heard, you have the right to broadcast on the channel. Nothing in DFS2 defines the size or type of antenna that has to be used to hear. It is feasible that if you can't hear them, that they can't hear you. And yes believe it or not, the difference between a 23 db panel and a pacwireless 29db more directional dish has been enough difference between hearing radar or not in some cases, to keep the radio from constantly jumping channels. If you really want to get clever you can spend $1500 and install a drum antenna, that has excellent side isolation. (as much as 60db F/B ratio spec). The purpose in my comment was not to sugget ability to over power the radar, as that would not be possible or ethical. Instead the goal is to prevent hearing each other. I have had situations where re-point 60 degrees off from my original path, has been enough to make 5.4Ghz usable versus not usable for a new prospect. It is also only necessary for the AP to scan if the CPE follows, so what side you mount your AP (or MU) can make a difference between whether the Radar is heard. The question with 5.4Ghz is How can I take advantage of it to use it? 5.4Ghz in a standard PtMP business class offering for primary service is completely useless in much of America. (Atleast the DC Metro tri-state areas). And for PTP one really can't affor to have service disrupted. You have to be creative to use it. One way is for non-mission critical best effort mesh type deployments. For example, it would be great if Highway safety used it for their street light networks to downloading traffic violation tickets :-) Wouldn't it be great if we just got half the tickets half the time when the system worked :-) We also use 5.4 for backup links, or paths that have backup route paths. What I hate about DFS is the randomness. Its a 2 week to 1 month process to learn whether a 5.4Ghz link will be reliable without premature hopping. So the best thing to do is design it from day one to be as interference resistence as possible. We use the most directional antenna appropriate for our link from day 1, to avoid the risk and costs associated with the risk. DFS activating and Hopping channels should be the last reult effort to preventing interference with Radar, and links should be optomized to prevent that. We'll also try numerous channels in advance, and record which channels don't hop, to maximize the chance that if it does in the future, we know what channels are most likely to not hop in the future, without redoing tests. This allows us to minimize downtime, if Radar jumps on our link 2 weeks down the road. I'm also starting to think that GPS syncing might be a better idea for high risk 5.4Ghz PTMP cell site links, just because if there is a heavilly loaded cell site, the damage would be minimized if the radio jumped to the channel of another radio. (We don't currently use any GPS synced equip). But with the trend of Full Duplex comming back, it might not be to bad to use syncing. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:22 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question With your calculator, take your front to back attenuation for your dish (or side) and apply 41 watts to it from direction chosen and let me know what you end up with lol... You can't possibly combat it at all cause if your on the same freq your going to get a visit from some people that have been in better moods asking why they have a stripe on their radar screen... It don't take a lot of power when their receive it about 60db gain with 1 deg sweeping dish that listens in every direction that is made to hear a reflection off a rain drop or bird at 200 miles... You were kidding right Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:13 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question The only good answer to combat DFS is to use directional PTP antennas with good F/B ratios. I'd give 5.4G back to the FCC in a heartbeat, if they gave us 5.3Ghz back without DFS and low power requirements. If you ask me Either 5.3 radars or 5.4 radars should be forced to upgrade to the other band, and free up the other :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Adam Goodman a...@wispring.com To: sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General List
Re: [WISPA] using multiple 5.3 cards in a Mikrotik
OK, fair question.Two answers 1) Modify question/thread to ask. a) How to get two 2.4Ghz radars operational on MT433 b) How to get two 5.8Ghz cards operational on MT433 2) This is RD in development. Problem 1 is getting two cards to not-interfere in a SBC like MT433 on same band. Problem 2 is determinig if Atheros Wifi cards are possible to make DFS complient, and if MT433 type SBC hardware are viable models for DFS compliance. Problem 3 is can MT software be re-written to legally support DFS? If all 3 problem questions eventually get answered, you will find that many people will be willing to legally certify the product solutions, and start mass usage of them legally. But you have to start somewhere, one problem at a time. If you wanted to be all high and mighty on compliance, and beieve the problems will never be solved via 802.11a and software, why not just lobby to stop the manufacturing of all mPCI cards that include support for 5.3-5.4G spectrum, and stiffle innovation? The way I see it is... Spectrum is to valuable to waste it's optimal performance, and therefore not interested in deploying gear that compromises quality and potential of the deployment. If two radios can't co-exist well, we are better off eating the expense to deploy individual single radio systems, and not waste our time further. But if multi-card systems can operate optimally, by building them in an optimal way, well then there is a basis to continue this RD exploration to make a better system, and eventually certify it. What I don't like doing is just sitting here waiting years for manufacturers to never built the ultimate product. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] using multiple 5.3 cards in a Mikrotik Just a dumb question... If DFS is not certified on MT and is required for 5.3 operation how could you drum up support for planning something illegal? Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:40 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] using multiple 5.3 cards in a Mikrotik I have read numerous discussions on problems regarding self interference between two mPCI cards inserted in the same SBC, on same Freqs. Some reporting need for 40Mhz of center channel seperation. These are the factors... U.FL vs MMCX connectors One vs two Antenna Ports on a single mpci card (for example will second unused antenna port on card without pigtail hear noise. Does the second port need to be terminated?) Proximity of mPCI slots to each other. (ADI/Lucaya side by side versus MT 433 Stacked) High power embedded amped vs low power cards. Software thresholds vs not (min and max receive threshold and adapative noise immunity) Bleed over at card versus bleed over at antenna. (polarity won't help at card's port) Interference from Antenna port RF vs internal electronics generated RF noise (used to see this in PCs if HDD were to close to MB) One manufacturer's card vs another's. Receiver overload vs interference Unsubstantiated guestimates about this topic won;t really help because there are a LOT of variables contributing to the problem. MT433 or equivellent will most like work excellent if each card has a different freq such as 2.4, 5.8, and 900. Unless the problem is Receiver Overload. Where in that case maybe 2 CM9s could work better even if both on adjacent channel 5.3? If interference is based on Antenna placement, well thats easilly controllable by a field tech at time of installation. But what I'm concerned about is knowing that the radio system itself is made to be non-ninterfering internally. From a remote management perspective, its going to be painful tracking which radio systems have to be how far apart in channels to not interfere troubleshooting on-the-fly, without some baseline stats defined a head of time. So this brings me to three questions of higher relevence. 1) What do we need to do to guarantee that two cards can co-exist and be used on adjacenet channels without interference at the radio card hardware level (not including antenna placement factors that could allow intference) 2) Has anyone actually used a Spectrum Analyzer or Noise meter to actually measure the RF bleed between to mounted cards? With accurate results of what the interference levels are? 3) Would WISP members be interested in contributing to a small fund to pay someone to actually accurately measure the results for us? I'd like to specifically know for the 433 board. If using the higher quality MMCX w/ single antenna port cards (MT brand card), will 10Mhz of channel
Re: [WISPA] using multiple 5.3 cards in a Mikrotik
Basically from own experience and testing. Two cards mounted side by side at a slight distance even if they are XR5 cards suffers no to minimal problems between them and it goes for all cards I seen. Two cards mount closely stacked on each other with just millimeter distance do cause problems at times. Worst cases are the high power cards like for example the XR5. In some instances the frequency transmission been majorly separated yet the problem is there. It is almost like the preamped, premixed signal is bleeding between the cards causing interference. But this is just stipulations. In testing by putting an alu foil sheet (put inside plastic sheet protectors) between the cards seemed to cure the worst problems and at least stop the constant association/disassociation problems. Never had a chance to do check for RF errors and compare throughput data between this setup and one where the radio cards where put in separate boxes. The issue seems far less common with the lower powered 5GHz cards (ie 100mw or less). But I have not done a lot of testing there but also not heard any issues complaints there where I heard plenty of people having issues with trying to stick 3 or 4 5GHz high power radio cards in a single MT board in a single metal/diecast outdoor enclosure. We try to talk people out of building the 3 or 4 radio AP's with running the same frequency on all the cards. We have however not seen this issue (or at least not caught the obviousness) when doing multiple frequencies. Say put a 2.4GHz high power card on top of a high power 5GHz card in a RB600 on one side of the board and another 2.4ghz on top of a 5ghz on the second mpci stack in the RB600. But on the RB333 and actually even the RB600 we seen issues doing 2 or 3 5GHz cards. Due to the nature of 2.4ghz (higher noise floor levels, used for CPE connections etc) we have not been able to say ahh your problem there is self interference between your cards in the unit. But since most people use 5GHz for ptp backhaul with low noise floor we been able to pin point that hey this link shouldn't have any problems and if we turn of one of the other radio cards the trouble link has no troubles any longer your self interfering on yourself inside your own box. A UFL connector can pickup signal from another UFL connector and create a working solid link of the cards are no more then a few inches apart. I tested this at numerous occasions. So RF bleeds from another radio could be picked up by a UFL connector when the source is strong enough and just one or two inches away. Since most cards have diversity built in to them the secondary port by default will always be listening so this will of course create a problem. With a MMCX connector I been able to pickup signal from an AP easily 20ft away with a card with no antenna or pigtail plugged in to it (AP had antenna). So looking at this using a radio with UFL as the main connector and a MMCX as secondary could very well create even a bigger issue since the MMCX is even better at picking up radiated signal then the UFL. Many people prefer the MMCX connectorized cards because they can use a larger pigtail that has less cable loss.. But from what I understand the lower cable loss on the pigtail is negated by the fact that the MMCX connector on the radio has more connector loss then a UFL so a MMCX vs ufl is plus minus zero in cable loss/connector loss. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:40 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] using multiple 5.3 cards in a Mikrotik I have read numerous discussions on problems regarding self interference between two mPCI cards inserted in the same SBC, on same Freqs. Some reporting need for 40Mhz of center channel seperation. These are the factors... U.FL vs MMCX connectors One vs two Antenna Ports on a single mpci card (for example will second unused antenna port on card without pigtail hear noise. Does the second port need to be terminated?) Proximity of mPCI slots to each other. (ADI/Lucaya side by side versus MT 433 Stacked) High power embedded amped vs low power cards. Software thresholds vs not (min and max receive threshold and adapative noise immunity) Bleed over at card versus bleed over at antenna. (polarity won't help at card's port) Interference from Antenna port RF vs internal electronics generated RF noise (used to see this in PCs if HDD were to close to MB) One manufacturer's card vs another's. Receiver overload vs interference Unsubstantiated guestimates about this topic won;t really help because there are a LOT of variables contributing to the problem. MT433 or equivellent will most like work excellent if each card has a different freq such as 2.4, 5.8, and 900. Unless the problem is Receiver Overload. Where in that case maybe 2 CM9s could work better even if both on adjacent channel 5.3? If interference is based
Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question
Maybe thats why the weather man always get the forcast wrong, those darn WISPs :-) OK, lets get real... I agree, we should not do anything that we know will purposely harm radar systems. But the FEDs negotiated teh DFS technical spec for 5-7 years, before they finally gave it to us. If they didn't get it right, thats not really my doing. nor the WISP industry's. When my network gets interfered with, it is my responsibilty to go find a solution, and go find the culprit. Why should it be any different for the radar person? I'm tired of teh double standard that WISPs are less important than the rest of the world, and therefore should be expected to take steps far greater than others. Many WISPs provide mission critical solutions, just as critical as radar in my opinion. For example WISPs may provide broadband to TV stations that distribute the information to the public, or the remote scientific communities that interperates the results. Or to Hospitals and homes of teh elderly, or possible the schools where our children learn. Etc Etc. Why are WISPs so less deserving to use spectrum? Quite honestly I don't believe any spectrum should be allowed to be licensed. A WISPs responsibilty is to comply to the rules, not to monitor whether radar systems get interference. Thats the responsibilty of the Radar techs. If the FAA comes knocking at my door saying I'm interfering with them, I'd be the first person to Immediately stop interfering with them, and offer full cooperation. (whether legally required or not). They were there first, and the goal is not to interfere with them. But the burden is on them to show me the interference exists. And if it takes them 10 people to track down the interference, all I can say is, I wish I had their budget to waste on tech labor, because they could have accomplished the task with 1 or 2 people (quickly), like WISPs usually do. But what you are right about is FCC compliance. In a situation like that, its going to get ugly if uncertified gear was used. The FCC was really big on 5.4G legallity of DFS2. I think the FCC would be less harsh on 5.3G, as many 5.3 systems had been grandfathered, and it would have to be proven whether the WISPs had a grandfathered link, on whether the WISP was acting responsibly. And 5.3 radar users are likely already toleraent of the fact that 5.3 WISP users are out there, with DFS not being an original requirement of 5.3. But with 5.4Ghz, its a totally different animal, there was no legal 5.4 system not supporting DFS. I would find it highly unwise to use a non-certified 5.4Ghz system. I wonder if ANY of the MESH hardware is certified for DFS2 successfully. Such as Tropo? Or if they are all still 5.8 and 2.4 systems? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com To: sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question WE saw this recently here, The FCC and FAA sent a crew of about 10 perrsons to hunt down some rogue emissions that were afecting the local FAA Weather Radar. They were here for about 2 weeks. The local radar operated in 5610, had a rx opening from 5580 to 5640. The gain of the Weather antenna was 70db and the rx thershold -110, so imagine how a stray radio would interfere! They had a field day with local wispa using non FCC DFS Aproved gear in the band! They even got some stats on Canopy gear not trigerring correctly to the radar signature! They were going to Motorola with the info gathered here 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 Scott Carullo Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:52 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question You don't think your active transmitter can affect their weather radar? NOT Just because they have their gain tuned such that they can't hear a reflection off a baseball in your area doesn't mean your signal won't come booming in for them :) Mostly weather radar... And - remember - its just not the news stations in your area with radars // military installations, government establishments, airports, NOAA etc... the list goes on. Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:46 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question Is it military radar or weather radar that operates in these bands? If it is weather then we are lucky around here, our county is smack dab in the middle of the out of range zone for 3 different weather radars by about 60+ miles each. The National Weather Service
Re: [WISPA] Wimax 802.16d v 802.16e
Here is the quick answer: 802.16d is a fixed only technology (no mobility) which performs quite well for delivering broadband to homes and businesses. Highly available. Secure. More expensive, more scalable and somewhat higher latency than similar fixed technologies based on 802.11 and other proprietary systems similar to 802.11. Most prominently used in 3.65 GHz in the US. Heavily used in 3.5 GHz in international areas where no copper plant has been installed previously. Unique feature of this technology is the ability to provision service flows with predictable performance criteria. This enables SLA provisioning on wireless broadband virtual circuits and many other advantages over any other broadband platform (wireless or wired). 802.16e is a fixed and mobile platform. This is being used now in 2.5 GHz licensed band in the US and elsewhere. Very little has been done to take full advantage of mobility in this band. More expensive to deploy than 802.16d. Higher latency than 802.16d. This is a direct competitor to LTE systems for cellular. If you do not hold an exclusive licensee in 2.5 GHz then this is not likely an option for you at this time. For more input and more help take it to the memb...@wispa.org list for paid members and we can dig into it deeper including step by step instructions for getting your own 3.65 license and applying for locations. Scriv On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Michael Baird m...@tc3net.com wrote: I'm researching these two technologies and Wimax in general, does anyone have any firsthand experience with the two current different types of Wimax, or references to the differences in the two different types of technologies for broadband fixed rural deployments? Regards Michael Baird 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] DFS Radar Question
Thing is that WISP are secondary or Terceary users of 5.4, It took 10 persons cause our area is very similar to Miami, lots of Bldgs, lots of RF Emitters in the area... Thay had lots of work to do! It was a tough job to do... They visited nearly 25 rooftops among other locations, during lots of test on each. I was one day with them 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 Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 1:15 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question Maybe thats why the weather man always get the forcast wrong, those darn WISPs :-) OK, lets get real... I agree, we should not do anything that we know will purposely harm radar systems. But the FEDs negotiated teh DFS technical spec for 5-7 years, before they finally gave it to us. If they didn't get it right, thats not really my doing. nor the WISP industry's. When my network gets interfered with, it is my responsibilty to go find a solution, and go find the culprit. Why should it be any different for the radar person? I'm tired of teh double standard that WISPs are less important than the rest of the world, and therefore should be expected to take steps far greater than others. Many WISPs provide mission critical solutions, just as critical as radar in my opinion. For example WISPs may provide broadband to TV stations that distribute the information to the public, or the remote scientific communities that interperates the results. Or to Hospitals and homes of teh elderly, or possible the schools where our children learn. Etc Etc. Why are WISPs so less deserving to use spectrum? Quite honestly I don't believe any spectrum should be allowed to be licensed. A WISPs responsibilty is to comply to the rules, not to monitor whether radar systems get interference. Thats the responsibilty of the Radar techs. If the FAA comes knocking at my door saying I'm interfering with them, I'd be the first person to Immediately stop interfering with them, and offer full cooperation. (whether legally required or not). They were there first, and the goal is not to interfere with them. But the burden is on them to show me the interference exists. And if it takes them 10 people to track down the interference, all I can say is, I wish I had their budget to waste on tech labor, because they could have accomplished the task with 1 or 2 people (quickly), like WISPs usually do. But what you are right about is FCC compliance. In a situation like that, its going to get ugly if uncertified gear was used. The FCC was really big on 5.4G legallity of DFS2. I think the FCC would be less harsh on 5.3G, as many 5.3 systems had been grandfathered, and it would have to be proven whether the WISPs had a grandfathered link, on whether the WISP was acting responsibly. And 5.3 radar users are likely already toleraent of the fact that 5.3 WISP users are out there, with DFS not being an original requirement of 5.3. But with 5.4Ghz, its a totally different animal, there was no legal 5.4 system not supporting DFS. I would find it highly unwise to use a non-certified 5.4Ghz system. I wonder if ANY of the MESH hardware is certified for DFS2 successfully. Such as Tropo? Or if they are all still 5.8 and 2.4 systems? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com To: sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question WE saw this recently here, The FCC and FAA sent a crew of about 10 perrsons to hunt down some rogue emissions that were afecting the local FAA Weather Radar. They were here for about 2 weeks. The local radar operated in 5610, had a rx opening from 5580 to 5640. The gain of the Weather antenna was 70db and the rx thershold -110, so imagine how a stray radio would interfere! They had a field day with local wispa using non FCC DFS Aproved gear in the band! They even got some stats on Canopy gear not trigerring correctly to the radar signature! They were going to Motorola with the info gathered here 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 Scott Carullo Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:52 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question You don't think your active transmitter can affect their weather radar? NOT Just because they have their gain tuned such that they can't hear a reflection off a baseball in your area doesn't mean your signal won't come booming in for them :) Mostly weather radar... And - remember - its just not the news stations in
Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question
Its interesting to hear details of how it went down. I'm not suggesting it wasn't alot of work or difficult. But I was more bringing forward the point that I still don't see how its any different than what a WISP has to go through on a daily basis, for example in my home market of DC. We have a lot of roofs to. Maybe that should be a good story to support WISPA's position on Licensed Lite for Whitespace (Oh yeah, that one is over and lost) or why WISP's need their own usable spectrum not flooded by millions of unlicensed devices? Maybe the radar should have been designed to drop down to use 10Mhz channels during interference situations? (joke) :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question Thing is that WISP are secondary or Terceary users of 5.4, It took 10 persons cause our area is very similar to Miami, lots of Bldgs, lots of RF Emitters in the area... Thay had lots of work to do! It was a tough job to do... They visited nearly 25 rooftops among other locations, during lots of test on each. I was one day with them 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 Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 1:15 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question Maybe thats why the weather man always get the forcast wrong, those darn WISPs :-) OK, lets get real... I agree, we should not do anything that we know will purposely harm radar systems. But the FEDs negotiated teh DFS technical spec for 5-7 years, before they finally gave it to us. If they didn't get it right, thats not really my doing. nor the WISP industry's. When my network gets interfered with, it is my responsibilty to go find a solution, and go find the culprit. Why should it be any different for the radar person? I'm tired of teh double standard that WISPs are less important than the rest of the world, and therefore should be expected to take steps far greater than others. Many WISPs provide mission critical solutions, just as critical as radar in my opinion. For example WISPs may provide broadband to TV stations that distribute the information to the public, or the remote scientific communities that interperates the results. Or to Hospitals and homes of teh elderly, or possible the schools where our children learn. Etc Etc. Why are WISPs so less deserving to use spectrum? Quite honestly I don't believe any spectrum should be allowed to be licensed. A WISPs responsibilty is to comply to the rules, not to monitor whether radar systems get interference. Thats the responsibilty of the Radar techs. If the FAA comes knocking at my door saying I'm interfering with them, I'd be the first person to Immediately stop interfering with them, and offer full cooperation. (whether legally required or not). They were there first, and the goal is not to interfere with them. But the burden is on them to show me the interference exists. And if it takes them 10 people to track down the interference, all I can say is, I wish I had their budget to waste on tech labor, because they could have accomplished the task with 1 or 2 people (quickly), like WISPs usually do. But what you are right about is FCC compliance. In a situation like that, its going to get ugly if uncertified gear was used. The FCC was really big on 5.4G legallity of DFS2. I think the FCC would be less harsh on 5.3G, as many 5.3 systems had been grandfathered, and it would have to be proven whether the WISPs had a grandfathered link, on whether the WISP was acting responsibly. And 5.3 radar users are likely already toleraent of the fact that 5.3 WISP users are out there, with DFS not being an original requirement of 5.3. But with 5.4Ghz, its a totally different animal, there was no legal 5.4 system not supporting DFS. I would find it highly unwise to use a non-certified 5.4Ghz system. I wonder if ANY of the MESH hardware is certified for DFS2 successfully. Such as Tropo? Or if they are all still 5.8 and 2.4 systems? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com To: sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question WE saw this recently here, The FCC and FAA sent a crew of about 10 perrsons to hunt down some rogue emissions that were afecting the local FAA Weather Radar. They were here for about 2 weeks. The local radar operated in 5610, had a rx opening from 5580 to 5640. The gain of the Weather
Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question
Well yeah, the sad part is the folks that came here were directly involved in the drafting of the dfs2 rules, and the word going back to DC is that new users of 5.4 are a bunch of cowboys using $80 gear not certified. They had a similar problem in NYC You can imagine what that could do to us as a whole... We could loose 5.4 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 Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question Its interesting to hear details of how it went down. I'm not suggesting it wasn't alot of work or difficult. But I was more bringing forward the point that I still don't see how its any different than what a WISP has to go through on a daily basis, for example in my home market of DC. We have a lot of roofs to. Maybe that should be a good story to support WISPA's position on Licensed Lite for Whitespace (Oh yeah, that one is over and lost) or why WISP's need their own usable spectrum not flooded by millions of unlicensed devices? Maybe the radar should have been designed to drop down to use 10Mhz channels during interference situations? (joke) :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question Thing is that WISP are secondary or Terceary users of 5.4, It took 10 persons cause our area is very similar to Miami, lots of Bldgs, lots of RF Emitters in the area... Thay had lots of work to do! It was a tough job to do... They visited nearly 25 rooftops among other locations, during lots of test on each. I was one day with them 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 Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 1:15 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question Maybe thats why the weather man always get the forcast wrong, those darn WISPs :-) OK, lets get real... I agree, we should not do anything that we know will purposely harm radar systems. But the FEDs negotiated teh DFS technical spec for 5-7 years, before they finally gave it to us. If they didn't get it right, thats not really my doing. nor the WISP industry's. When my network gets interfered with, it is my responsibilty to go find a solution, and go find the culprit. Why should it be any different for the radar person? I'm tired of teh double standard that WISPs are less important than the rest of the world, and therefore should be expected to take steps far greater than others. Many WISPs provide mission critical solutions, just as critical as radar in my opinion. For example WISPs may provide broadband to TV stations that distribute the information to the public, or the remote scientific communities that interperates the results. Or to Hospitals and homes of teh elderly, or possible the schools where our children learn. Etc Etc. Why are WISPs so less deserving to use spectrum? Quite honestly I don't believe any spectrum should be allowed to be licensed. A WISPs responsibilty is to comply to the rules, not to monitor whether radar systems get interference. Thats the responsibilty of the Radar techs. If the FAA comes knocking at my door saying I'm interfering with them, I'd be the first person to Immediately stop interfering with them, and offer full cooperation. (whether legally required or not). They were there first, and the goal is not to interfere with them. But the burden is on them to show me the interference exists. And if it takes them 10 people to track down the interference, all I can say is, I wish I had their budget to waste on tech labor, because they could have accomplished the task with 1 or 2 people (quickly), like WISPs usually do. But what you are right about is FCC compliance. In a situation like that, its going to get ugly if uncertified gear was used. The FCC was really big on 5.4G legallity of DFS2. I think the FCC would be less harsh on 5.3G, as many 5.3 systems had been grandfathered, and it would have to be proven whether the WISPs had a grandfathered link, on whether the WISP was acting responsibly. And 5.3 radar users are likely already toleraent of the fact that 5.3 WISP users are out there, with DFS not being an original requirement of 5.3. But with 5.4Ghz, its a totally different animal, there was no legal 5.4 system not supporting DFS. I would find it highly unwise to use a non-certified 5.4Ghz system. I wonder if ANY of the MESH hardware is certified for DFS2 successfully. Such as
Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question
Best solution Publish all radar locations and freqs and we avoid like the plauge Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x102 On Apr 21, 2009, at 1:14 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote: Maybe thats why the weather man always get the forcast wrong, those darn WISPs :-) OK, lets get real... I agree, we should not do anything that we know will purposely harm radar systems. But the FEDs negotiated teh DFS technical spec for 5-7 years, before they finally gave it to us. If they didn't get it right, thats not really my doing. nor the WISP industry's. When my network gets interfered with, it is my responsibilty to go find a solution, and go find the culprit. Why should it be any different for the radar person? I'm tired of teh double standard that WISPs are less important than the rest of the world, and therefore should be expected to take steps far greater than others. Many WISPs provide mission critical solutions, just as critical as radar in my opinion. For example WISPs may provide broadband to TV stations that distribute the information to the public, or the remote scientific communities that interperates the results. Or to Hospitals and homes of teh elderly, or possible the schools where our children learn. Etc Etc. Why are WISPs so less deserving to use spectrum? Quite honestly I don't believe any spectrum should be allowed to be licensed. A WISPs responsibilty is to comply to the rules, not to monitor whether radar systems get interference. Thats the responsibilty of the Radar techs. If the FAA comes knocking at my door saying I'm interfering with them, I'd be the first person to Immediately stop interfering with them, and offer full cooperation. (whether legally required or not). They were there first, and the goal is not to interfere with them. But the burden is on them to show me the interference exists. And if it takes them 10 people to track down the interference, all I can say is, I wish I had their budget to waste on tech labor, because they could have accomplished the task with 1 or 2 people (quickly), like WISPs usually do. But what you are right about is FCC compliance. In a situation like that, its going to get ugly if uncertified gear was used. The FCC was really big on 5.4G legallity of DFS2. I think the FCC would be less harsh on 5.3G, as many 5.3 systems had been grandfathered, and it would have to be proven whether the WISPs had a grandfathered link, on whether the WISP was acting responsibly. And 5.3 radar users are likely already toleraent of the fact that 5.3 WISP users are out there, with DFS not being an original requirement of 5.3. But with 5.4Ghz, its a totally different animal, there was no legal 5.4 system not supporting DFS. I would find it highly unwise to use a non-certified 5.4Ghz system. I wonder if ANY of the MESH hardware is certified for DFS2 successfully. Such as Tropo? Or if they are all still 5.8 and 2.4 systems? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com To: sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question WE saw this recently here, The FCC and FAA sent a crew of about 10 perrsons to hunt down some rogue emissions that were afecting the local FAA Weather Radar. They were here for about 2 weeks. The local radar operated in 5610, had a rx opening from 5580 to 5640. The gain of the Weather antenna was 70db and the rx thershold -110, so imagine how a stray radio would interfere! They had a field day with local wispa using non FCC DFS Aproved gear in the band! They even got some stats on Canopy gear not trigerring correctly to the radar signature! They were going to Motorola with the info gathered here 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 Scott Carullo Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:52 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question You don't think your active transmitter can affect their weather radar? NOT Just because they have their gain tuned such that they can't hear a reflection off a baseball in your area doesn't mean your signal won't come booming in for them :) Mostly weather radar... And - remember - its just not the news stations in your area with radars // military installations, government establishments, airports, NOAA etc... the list goes on. Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:46 AM To: WISPA General
Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question
It is published- FCC ULS search. Be sure to look there before trying to deploy a 5.4 link next to a 1.4 MW (yes, mega) EIRP weather radar tower like I did. Patrick Shoemaker Vector Data Systems LLC shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com office: (301) 358-1690 x36 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Scott Carullo wrote: Best solution Publish all radar locations and freqs and we avoid like the plauge Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x102 On Apr 21, 2009, at 1:14 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote: Maybe thats why the weather man always get the forcast wrong, those darn WISPs :-) OK, lets get real... I agree, we should not do anything that we know will purposely harm radar systems. But the FEDs negotiated teh DFS technical spec for 5-7 years, before they finally gave it to us. If they didn't get it right, thats not really my doing. nor the WISP industry's. When my network gets interfered with, it is my responsibilty to go find a solution, and go find the culprit. Why should it be any different for the radar person? I'm tired of teh double standard that WISPs are less important than the rest of the world, and therefore should be expected to take steps far greater than others. Many WISPs provide mission critical solutions, just as critical as radar in my opinion. For example WISPs may provide broadband to TV stations that distribute the information to the public, or the remote scientific communities that interperates the results. Or to Hospitals and homes of teh elderly, or possible the schools where our children learn. Etc Etc. Why are WISPs so less deserving to use spectrum? Quite honestly I don't believe any spectrum should be allowed to be licensed. A WISPs responsibilty is to comply to the rules, not to monitor whether radar systems get interference. Thats the responsibilty of the Radar techs. If the FAA comes knocking at my door saying I'm interfering with them, I'd be the first person to Immediately stop interfering with them, and offer full cooperation. (whether legally required or not). They were there first, and the goal is not to interfere with them. But the burden is on them to show me the interference exists. And if it takes them 10 people to track down the interference, all I can say is, I wish I had their budget to waste on tech labor, because they could have accomplished the task with 1 or 2 people (quickly), like WISPs usually do. But what you are right about is FCC compliance. In a situation like that, its going to get ugly if uncertified gear was used. The FCC was really big on 5.4G legallity of DFS2. I think the FCC would be less harsh on 5.3G, as many 5.3 systems had been grandfathered, and it would have to be proven whether the WISPs had a grandfathered link, on whether the WISP was acting responsibly. And 5.3 radar users are likely already toleraent of the fact that 5.3 WISP users are out there, with DFS not being an original requirement of 5.3. But with 5.4Ghz, its a totally different animal, there was no legal 5.4 system not supporting DFS. I would find it highly unwise to use a non-certified 5.4Ghz system. I wonder if ANY of the MESH hardware is certified for DFS2 successfully. Such as Tropo? Or if they are all still 5.8 and 2.4 systems? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com To: sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question WE saw this recently here, The FCC and FAA sent a crew of about 10 perrsons to hunt down some rogue emissions that were afecting the local FAA Weather Radar. They were here for about 2 weeks. The local radar operated in 5610, had a rx opening from 5580 to 5640. The gain of the Weather antenna was 70db and the rx thershold -110, so imagine how a stray radio would interfere! They had a field day with local wispa using non FCC DFS Aproved gear in the band! They even got some stats on Canopy gear not trigerring correctly to the radar signature! They were going to Motorola with the info gathered here 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 Scott Carullo Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:52 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question You don't think your active transmitter can affect their weather radar? NOT Just because they have their gain tuned such that they can't hear a reflection off a baseball in your area doesn't mean your signal won't come booming in for them :) Mostly weather radar... And - remember - its just not the
Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question
But it will trigger on civilian weather radar signals if they're hot enough. Or if Trango TLink45's, it will trigger on someone sneezing in the vicinity. Patrick Shoemaker Vector Data Systems LLC shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com office: (301) 358-1690 x36 http://www.vectordatasystems.com lakel...@gbcx.net wrote: The DFS signature is not set for domestic radar. It is for military only. -B- Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:41:42 To: sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question WE saw this recently here, The FCC and FAA sent a crew of about 10 perrsons to hunt down some rogue emissions that were afecting the local FAA Weather Radar. They were here for about 2 weeks. The local radar operated in 5610, had a rx opening from 5580 to 5640. The gain of the Weather antenna was 70db and the rx thershold -110, so imagine how a stray radio would interfere! They had a field day with local wispa using non FCC DFS Aproved gear in the band! They even got some stats on Canopy gear not trigerring correctly to the radar signature! They were going to Motorola with the info gathered here 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 Scott Carullo Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:52 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question You don't think your active transmitter can affect their weather radar? NOT Just because they have their gain tuned such that they can't hear a reflection off a baseball in your area doesn't mean your signal won't come booming in for them :) Mostly weather radar... And - remember - its just not the news stations in your area with radars // military installations, government establishments, airports, NOAA etc... the list goes on. Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:46 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question Is it military radar or weather radar that operates in these bands? If it is weather then we are lucky around here, our county is smack dab in the middle of the out of range zone for 3 different weather radars by about 60+ miles each. The National Weather Service is really interested in storm spotters in this area because of the lack of radar coverage. 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 Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question The only good answer to combat DFS is to use directional PTP antennas with good F/B ratios. I'd give 5.4G back to the FCC in a heartbeat, if they gave us 5.3Ghz back without DFS and low power requirements. If you ask me Either 5.3 radars or 5.4 radars should be forced to upgrade to the other band, and free up the other :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Adam Goodman a...@wispring.com To: sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 4:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question I had some trouble with radar (think it was radar) last year. Interferences could be from many sources. It sa problem because you can't just go sit there for a couple of weeks with a spectrum analyzer listening for noise. It would be nice if there was a reasonably priced logger. Or with Internet connectivity. All this is probably a pipe dream as I have never seen anything with such functionality. On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.com wrote: Anyone know of a radio that can just listen passively and scan through channels and report back on radar signals heard on what frequencies? That would be a great tool to have to scope out certain areas of interest to know ahead of time what radar DFS issues might be present... Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Blair Davis the...@wmwisp.net Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 4:30 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Gell Cell? WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List:
Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question
All this DFS stuff makes me think that staying in the ISM bands makes more sense. Gino Villarini wrote: WE saw this recently here, The FCC and FAA sent a crew of about 10 perrsons to hunt down some rogue emissions that were afecting the local FAA Weather Radar. They were here for about 2 weeks. The local radar operated in 5610, had a rx opening from 5580 to 5640. The gain of the Weather antenna was 70db and the rx thershold -110, so imagine how a stray radio would interfere! They had a field day with local wispa using non FCC DFS Aproved gear in the band! They even got some stats on Canopy gear not trigerring correctly to the radar signature! They were going to Motorola with the info gathered here 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 Scott Carullo Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:52 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question You don't think your active transmitter can affect their weather radar? NOT Just because they have their gain tuned such that they can't hear a reflection off a baseball in your area doesn't mean your signal won't come booming in for them :) Mostly weather radar... And - remember - its just not the news stations in your area with radars // military installations, government establishments, airports, NOAA etc... the list goes on. Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: "Kurt Fankhauser" k...@wavelinc.com Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:46 AM To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question Is it military radar or weather radar that operates in these bands? If it is weather then we are lucky around here, our county is smack dab in the middle of the "out of range zone" for 3 different weather radars by about 60+ miles each. The National Weather Service is really interested in storm spotters in this area because of the lack of radar coverage. 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 Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question The only good answer to combat DFS is to use directional PTP antennas with good F/B ratios. I'd give 5.4G back to the FCC in a heartbeat, if they gave us 5.3Ghz back without DFS and low power requirements. If you ask me Either 5.3 radars or 5.4 radars should be forced to upgrade to the other band, and free up the other :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Adam Goodman" a...@wispring.com To: sc...@brevardwireless.com; "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 4:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question I had some trouble with radar (think it was radar) last year. Interferences could be from many sources. It sa problem because you can't just go sit there for a couple of weeks with a spectrum analyzer listening for noise. It would be nice if there was a reasonably priced logger. Or with Internet connectivity. All this is probably a pipe dream as I have never seen anything with such functionality. On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.com wrote: Anyone know of a radio that can just listen passively and scan through channels and report back on radar signals heard on what frequencies? That would be a great tool to have to scope out certain areas of interest to know ahead of time what radar DFS issues might be present... Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: "Blair Davis" the...@wmwisp.net Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 4:30 PM To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Gell Cell? 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] Tower Source
We are looking to buy about 150' of Rohn 45 like tower Any preffered brand? Vendor? Nello? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 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 Source
Call Nello Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 4:03 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org, Motorola Canopy User Group motor...@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Tower Source We are looking to buy about 150' of Rohn 45 like tower Any preffered brand? Vendor? Nello? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 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] Tower Source
Nello for sure. AN Wireless in Pennsylvania, too. Gino Villarini wrote: We are looking to buy about 150' of Rohn 45 like tower Any preffered brand? Vendor? Nello? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 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 - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.1/2071 - Release Date: 04/21/09 08:30:00 -- Scott Reed Sr. Systems Engineer GAB Midwest 1-800-363-1544 x4000 Cell: 260-273-7239 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 Source
I second AN wireless. Dan is great to work with. They stock Nello sections. -- Patrick Shoemaker Vector Data Systems LLC shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com office: (301) 358-1690 x36 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Scott Reed wrote: Nello for sure. AN Wireless in Pennsylvania, too. Gino Villarini wrote: We are looking to buy about 150' of Rohn 45 like tower Any preffered brand? Vendor? Nello? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 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 - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.1/2071 - Release Date: 04/21/09 08:30:00 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 Source
Here's a post from Bob M. recently Just wanted to post a quick plug here for Nello Towers. If any of you guys or gals is considering buying a tower or towers you should consider these guys. We have been installing tower stuff for years and and I can't remember the last time I didn't have to pull out a mag drill, torch, come-a-long, sledgehammer or some other tool or device to make a tower go together. we just installed a 100' freestanding Nello NSX tower for a customer and every single hole lined up perfectly, the instructions were straight forward, everything was labeled and color coded, and there was even a box that said SPARE HARDWARE Holy Crap! Imagine that!!! A freakin' tower dog's miracle moment. we put the tower together and hung it in one day without issue. And we were not short ANYTHING. We have a second one to do and I can honestly say I am looking forward to it. Now I have no relationship with this company and I don't make anything from them. But I know what a nightmare putting some of these together can be like for someone with experience. Can't imagine a novice trying it. Anyone looking for some fun should buy five 100' Super Trylon towers from Tessco and try putting them together with the instructions off the web site. Took us 4 weeks especially when we realized we had all kinds of parts missing. And the shipping was a killer because Tessco makes its own kits and crates each individual section in nice heavy wood crates. 10 sections, 10 crates. We had enough wood left over to build a 4 bedroom house! :-) Just an FYI. Bob marlon - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org; Motorola Canopy User Group motor...@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 1:02 PM Subject: [WISPA] Tower Source We are looking to buy about 150' of Rohn 45 like tower Any preffered brand? Vendor? Nello? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 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] Wimax 802.16d v 802.16e
Have you deployed it? From my initial research, it appears that the bigger vendors Motorola/Alverion are supporting the 802.16e variety, while the smaller vendors such as Tranzeo are supporting the 802.16d variety. I'm aware of the advantages at the Mac Layer, but why would 802.16d at 3.65 with a slightly higher EIRP at 7 mhz channel spacing have better range then 802.11 variants at 2.4? The 802.16d unit specs I've looked at don't appear to scale much higher then the 2.4 units, but 802.16e appears to have the 2x2, 4x4 antenna tech that it seems would make a big difference at range. What's the magic that makes 802.16d work better then 802.11 variants as far as coverage, with essentially the same power but at a higher frequency? Regards Michael Baird Here is the quick answer: 802.16d is a fixed only technology (no mobility) which performs quite well for delivering broadband to homes and businesses. Highly available. Secure. More expensive, more scalable and somewhat higher latency than similar fixed technologies based on 802.11 and other proprietary systems similar to 802.11. Most prominently used in 3.65 GHz in the US. Heavily used in 3.5 GHz in international areas where no copper plant has been installed previously. Unique feature of this technology is the ability to provision service flows with predictable performance criteria. This enables SLA provisioning on wireless broadband virtual circuits and many other advantages over any other broadband platform (wireless or wired). 802.16e is a fixed and mobile platform. This is being used now in 2.5 GHz licensed band in the US and elsewhere. Very little has been done to take full advantage of mobility in this band. More expensive to deploy than 802.16d. Higher latency than 802.16d. This is a direct competitor to LTE systems for cellular. If you do not hold an exclusive licensee in 2.5 GHz then this is not likely an option for you at this time. For more input and more help take it to the memb...@wispa.org list for paid members and we can dig into it deeper including step by step instructions for getting your own 3.65 license and applying for locations. Scriv On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Michael Baird m...@tc3net.com wrote: I'm researching these two technologies and Wimax in general, does anyone have any firsthand experience with the two current different types of Wimax, or references to the differences in the two different types of technologies for broadband fixed rural deployments? Regards Michael Baird 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] Outdoor Mimo in OEM systems
I don't believe MT has drivers for it yet. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 5:42 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Outdoor Mimo in OEM systems Looks like the new MIMO (a,g,n) SR71-A Ubiquiti card is now shipping for around $130. Anyone use it yet for Mikrotik or StarOS ? Any advice for Antenna placement, to maximize MIMO benefits. Seems like it might be a no-brainer to have one of these in every AP soon. (A step up from just diversity) Tom DeReggi 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] Outdoor Mimo in OEM systems
I'd advise following whatever antenna type and antenna spacing recommendations the manufacturer makes. Getting proper performance from multiple antennas requires spacing them properly. jack Tom DeReggi wrote: Looks like the new MIMO (a,g,n) SR71-A Ubiquiti card is now shipping for around $130. Anyone use it yet for Mikrotik or StarOS ? Any advice for Antenna placement, to maximize MIMO benefits. Seems like it might be a no-brainer to have one of these in every AP soon. (A step up from just diversity) Tom DeReggi -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs Phone 818-227-4220 Email jun...@ask-wi.com No-cost Wireless Video Training April 23-24 http://www.moonblinkwifi.com/trainingcourse.cfm 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] DFS Radar Question
Yeah, it definately does. I'd never build a model around 5.4Ghz. But, when there is no otehr free spectrum, 5.4G starts to get tempting to use. You'd be surprised there are some areas, that are totally 5.4Ghz free. 1 or 2 Tier1 markets, I've seen that way. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Blair Davis To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 3:54 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question All this DFS stuff makes me think that staying in the ISM bands makes more sense. Gino Villarini wrote: WE saw this recently here, The FCC and FAA sent a crew of about 10 perrsons to hunt down some rogue emissions that were afecting the local FAA Weather Radar. They were here for about 2 weeks. The local radar operated in 5610, had a rx opening from 5580 to 5640. The gain of the Weather antenna was 70db and the rx thershold -110, so imagine how a stray radio would interfere! They had a field day with local wispa using non FCC DFS Aproved gear in the band! They even got some stats on Canopy gear not trigerring correctly to the radar signature! They were going to Motorola with the info gathered here 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 Scott Carullo Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:52 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question You don't think your active transmitter can affect their weather radar? NOT Just because they have their gain tuned such that they can't hear a reflection off a baseball in your area doesn't mean your signal won't come booming in for them :) Mostly weather radar... And - remember - its just not the news stations in your area with radars // military installations, government establishments, airports, NOAA etc... the list goes on. Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:46 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question Is it military radar or weather radar that operates in these bands? If it is weather then we are lucky around here, our county is smack dab in the middle of the out of range zone for 3 different weather radars by about 60+ miles each. The National Weather Service is really interested in storm spotters in this area because of the lack of radar coverage. 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 Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question The only good answer to combat DFS is to use directional PTP antennas with good F/B ratios. I'd give 5.4G back to the FCC in a heartbeat, if they gave us 5.3Ghz back without DFS and low power requirements. If you ask me Either 5.3 radars or 5.4 radars should be forced to upgrade to the other band, and free up the other :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Adam Goodman a...@wispring.com To: sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 4:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS Radar Question I had some trouble with radar (think it was radar) last year. Interferences could be from many sources. It sa problem because you can't just go sit there for a couple of weeks with a spectrum analyzer listening for noise. It would be nice if there was a reasonably priced logger. Or with Internet connectivity. All this is probably a pipe dream as I have never seen anything with such functionality. On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.com wrote: Anyone know of a radio that can just listen passively and scan through channels and report back on radar signals heard on what frequencies? That would be a great tool to have to scope out certain areas of interest to know ahead of time what radar DFS issues might be present... Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Blair Davis the...@wmwisp.net Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 4:30 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Gell Cell? WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
Re: [WISPA] Wimax 802.16d v 802.16e
On Apr 21, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Michael Baird wrote: Have you deployed it? From my initial research, it appears that the bigger vendors Motorola/Alverion are supporting the 802.16e variety, while the smaller vendors such as Tranzeo are supporting the 802.16d variety. I'm aware of the advantages at the Mac Layer, but why would 802.16d at 3.65 with a slightly higher EIRP at 7 mhz channel spacing have better range then 802.11 variants at 2.4? Noise. You should get, iirc, a 20 db lower noise floor at 3.65. Also, (again, iirc), in .16d you get to use 1 watt per MHz of channel size. So with a 7 MHz channel you have 7 watts to work with. The noise floor alone is worth 100x the power, and the extra EIRP is just a bonus. Chuck The 802.16d unit specs I've looked at don't appear to scale much higher then the 2.4 units, but 802.16e appears to have the 2x2, 4x4 antenna tech that it seems would make a big difference at range. What's the magic that makes 802.16d work better then 802.11 variants as far as coverage, with essentially the same power but at a higher frequency? Regards Michael Baird Here is the quick answer: 802.16d is a fixed only technology (no mobility) which performs quite well for delivering broadband to homes and businesses. Highly available. Secure. More expensive, more scalable and somewhat higher latency than similar fixed technologies based on 802.11 and other proprietary systems similar to 802.11. Most prominently used in 3.65 GHz in the US. Heavily used in 3.5 GHz in international areas where no copper plant has been installed previously. Unique feature of this technology is the ability to provision service flows with predictable performance criteria. This enables SLA provisioning on wireless broadband virtual circuits and many other advantages over any other broadband platform (wireless or wired). 802.16e is a fixed and mobile platform. This is being used now in 2.5 GHz licensed band in the US and elsewhere. Very little has been done to take full advantage of mobility in this band. More expensive to deploy than 802.16d. Higher latency than 802.16d. This is a direct competitor to LTE systems for cellular. If you do not hold an exclusive licensee in 2.5 GHz then this is not likely an option for you at this time. For more input and more help take it to the memb...@wispa.org list for paid members and we can dig into it deeper including step by step instructions for getting your own 3.65 license and applying for locations. Scriv On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Michael Baird m...@tc3net.com wrote: I'm researching these two technologies and Wimax in general, does anyone have any firsthand experience with the two current different types of Wimax, or references to the differences in the two different types of technologies for broadband fixed rural deployments? Regards Michael Baird 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/ -- Chuck Bartosch Clarity Connect, Inc. 200 Pleasant Grove Road Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 257-8268 If all is not lost, where is 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/
Re: [WISPA] Wimax 802.16d v 802.16e
Well depends what you are looking to solve. WiMax is not only about coverage and range. The relevent question is not to compare 802.16d to 802.11. Its well known the benefits of a TDD based system over a contension based system like 802.11 with side effects of latency and lower throughput per bit, and hidden node type problems. The relvent question is why would someone choce Wimax 802.16d over pre-existing non-WiMax TDD gear. The first answer is they don't. Standardization, 802.16d's big promise, isn't really standard between vendors, and not something that Providers really care about. All they care about is getting the best performance for the lowest price. One o the reasons that Wimaxd has not had skyrocketed success as many thought it would. 802.16e on the other hand had a whole different market. It attracted the interest of Telecom mobile carriers, to compliment their business models. Ironcially, WiMax 802.16e is becoming more of a commodity low cost best effort option for consumers, compared to the original promise that WiMax will be the next better more powerful solution. Right, its the Clearwire/Sprint type providers marketing to the self install, low $25 cost, home user best effort, underserved tier2 markets. Where as its the 802.16d fixed models that typically are engineered installs, for optimal performance and reliabilty. WiMax 802.16d is generally showing to be more cost effective, (since they are the underdog less feature rich technology to 802.16e). So what I'm saying is the difference between 802.16e and 16d is not the technology, it is the providers that chose to deploy it. 802.16d is more reliable because, WISP chose to deploy it, who are focused on engineering each link., and whom are OK with a Fixed model. 802.16d offers some benefits... that is compiling all the most recent technology features into a single platform. For example now, non wi-max gear... Caonopy has one feature, trango has another, Alvarion another. The goal is the best of all features get combined into the Wimax 802.16d feature set. The question that comes up is Did the 802.16d vendors successfully accomplish that goal? And is the price point good enough, to entice Service providers to buy into it, and pay more? I think sometimes the success of a technology is not always a conscious choice from the buyer. WISPs didn;t rush out to replace their existing TDD networks with WimAx before, and they don;t do it now either. But, when they are buyign new gear for new fresh free spectrum, WiMax good is as good as any other if that is what is available. In 3650 WiMax gear was often chosen simply because the WiMax gear was available. The WiMax vendors were at the front door to certify their 3650 Wimax product. And therefore WISPs were eager to immediately buy it to deploy their new networks. What WISPs need is spectrum. Spectrum is more precious than any technology features. People didn;t chose WiMax, they chose 3650, and WiMax jsut came along with the package. Sure WiMax Providers will contest that, to try to elevate their own network, piggy backing on the WiMax marketing hype bandwagon. But I pose the question... If 802.11 3650 gear was available first, what would WISPs be using most today in 3650? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Michael Baird m...@tc3net.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 6:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wimax 802.16d v 802.16e Have you deployed it? From my initial research, it appears that the bigger vendors Motorola/Alverion are supporting the 802.16e variety, while the smaller vendors such as Tranzeo are supporting the 802.16d variety. I'm aware of the advantages at the Mac Layer, but why would 802.16d at 3.65 with a slightly higher EIRP at 7 mhz channel spacing have better range then 802.11 variants at 2.4? The 802.16d unit specs I've looked at don't appear to scale much higher then the 2.4 units, but 802.16e appears to have the 2x2, 4x4 antenna tech that it seems would make a big difference at range. What's the magic that makes 802.16d work better then 802.11 variants as far as coverage, with essentially the same power but at a higher frequency? Regards Michael Baird Here is the quick answer: 802.16d is a fixed only technology (no mobility) which performs quite well for delivering broadband to homes and businesses. Highly available. Secure. More expensive, more scalable and somewhat higher latency than similar fixed technologies based on 802.11 and other proprietary systems similar to 802.11. Most prominently used in 3.65 GHz in the US. Heavily used in 3.5 GHz in international areas where no copper plant has been installed previously. Unique feature of this technology is the ability to provision service flows with predictable performance criteria. This enables SLA provisioning on wireless broadband virtual
Re: [WISPA] Outdoor Mimo in OEM systems
To bad, but I bet they are working on it :-) Does anybody? 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: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 6:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Outdoor Mimo in OEM systems I don't believe MT has drivers for it yet. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 5:42 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Outdoor Mimo in OEM systems Looks like the new MIMO (a,g,n) SR71-A Ubiquiti card is now shipping for around $130. Anyone use it yet for Mikrotik or StarOS ? Any advice for Antenna placement, to maximize MIMO benefits. Seems like it might be a no-brainer to have one of these in every AP soon. (A step up from just diversity) Tom DeReggi 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] room jack switch / AP
Have any of you guys used those wall plates that are both a switch and an access point? I heard that Colubrius (now HP) makes a good line, although I haven't used them. I've seen the 3comm ones, but haven't implemented them yet. 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] Wimax 802.16d v 802.16e
Unfortunately for reason I don't understand (because what you say to me as well seems to make more sense) they measure by spectral density power strength. So you can only do so much power per MHz. This of course means just what you say the wider channel your allowed to use the higher power levels you can accommodate. Since you have more spectral space to do the power in. /Eje Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:29:57 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wimax 802.16d v 802.16e Chuck, That is defiantely a plus now. But isn't that like a false advantage in the long run? With only 20-30Mhz of spectrum, will it stay noise free for long? in .16d you get to use 1 watt per MHz of channel size. How much watts per Mhz for 16e? On a side note, anyone know why FCC decided to reward people using larger channels with more power? Wouldn't it have been more politically correct to reward those that used smaller more efficient channels with higher power, to give them a reason to be more efficient? I'm sure there is a technical reason, that I don't understand, yet. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 6:59 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wimax 802.16d v 802.16e On Apr 21, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Michael Baird wrote: Have you deployed it? From my initial research, it appears that the bigger vendors Motorola/Alverion are supporting the 802.16e variety, while the smaller vendors such as Tranzeo are supporting the 802.16d variety. I'm aware of the advantages at the Mac Layer, but why would 802.16d at 3.65 with a slightly higher EIRP at 7 mhz channel spacing have better range then 802.11 variants at 2.4? Noise. You should get, iirc, a 20 db lower noise floor at 3.65. Also, (again, iirc), in .16d you get to use 1 watt per MHz of channel size. So with a 7 MHz channel you have 7 watts to work with. The noise floor alone is worth 100x the power, and the extra EIRP is just a bonus. Chuck The 802.16d unit specs I've looked at don't appear to scale much higher then the 2.4 units, but 802.16e appears to have the 2x2, 4x4 antenna tech that it seems would make a big difference at range. What's the magic that makes 802.16d work better then 802.11 variants as far as coverage, with essentially the same power but at a higher frequency? Regards Michael Baird Here is the quick answer: 802.16d is a fixed only technology (no mobility) which performs quite well for delivering broadband to homes and businesses. Highly available. Secure. More expensive, more scalable and somewhat higher latency than similar fixed technologies based on 802.11 and other proprietary systems similar to 802.11. Most prominently used in 3.65 GHz in the US. Heavily used in 3.5 GHz in international areas where no copper plant has been installed previously. Unique feature of this technology is the ability to provision service flows with predictable performance criteria. This enables SLA provisioning on wireless broadband virtual circuits and many other advantages over any other broadband platform (wireless or wired). 802.16e is a fixed and mobile platform. This is being used now in 2.5 GHz licensed band in the US and elsewhere. Very little has been done to take full advantage of mobility in this band. More expensive to deploy than 802.16d. Higher latency than 802.16d. This is a direct competitor to LTE systems for cellular. If you do not hold an exclusive licensee in 2.5 GHz then this is not likely an option for you at this time. For more input and more help take it to the memb...@wispa.org list for paid members and we can dig into it deeper including step by step instructions for getting your own 3.65 license and applying for locations. Scriv On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Michael Baird m...@tc3net.com wrote: I'm researching these two technologies and Wimax in general, does anyone have any firsthand experience with the two current different types of Wimax, or references to the differences in the two different types of technologies for broadband fixed rural deployments? Regards Michael Baird WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/
Re: [WISPA] Outdoor Mimo in OEM systems
This came up in the other forums, and the general consensus is that the drivers, even from the makers of the chipsets, are sorely weak. There's not good support even from UBNT, who sells them.MT and Star-OS do not and will not have drivers for some time. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 3:42 PM Subject: [WISPA] Outdoor Mimo in OEM systems Looks like the new MIMO (a,g,n) SR71-A Ubiquiti card is now shipping for around $130. Anyone use it yet for Mikrotik or StarOS ? Any advice for Antenna placement, to maximize MIMO benefits. Seems like it might be a no-brainer to have one of these in every AP soon. (A step up from just diversity) Tom DeReggi 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] room jack switch / AP
While I haven't done a wide spread deployment... I have played with the Moto/Tut Systems stuff and I am very impressed. Easy to setup and it just rocks. Hit me offlist if you want more info Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Rogelio Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 6:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] room jack switch / AP Have any of you guys used those wall plates that are both a switch and an access point? I heard that Colubrius (now HP) makes a good line, although I haven't used them. I've seen the 3comm ones, but haven't implemented them yet. 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] Splash Page
I have a splash page such as what you are describing ( http://vogent.net:88/ ) but no CPE insurance program. John Ray Jean wrote: Does anyone have a page they use when you cut off a customer for non-payment and let them know that their internet has been suspended. Letting them know what to do to activate it again, like making a payment. Also, I want to have customers pay an insurance on their equipment, I seen one on this list about a year ago and saved the link to use later but it no longer works, I believe it was Mac Dearman. It was a great program and I would like to use it, if I can. Thanks so much for your help! Jean Hill Surfmore.Net 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 Vogel - jvo...@vogent.net http://www.vogent.net 620-754-3907 Vogel Enterprises LLC Information Services Provider serving S.E. Kansas 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 Source--speaking of which!
Since WISPA is our wireless organization... and one of which I promised to join and will soon now that tax season is gone and my other wireless membership has expired... We all need towers of some form of another. Could WISPA become a buyer's club(for lack of better words) for towers, equipment, etc...? I know the companies that are huge and buy in bulk get very large discounts. As a group, our buying power would be very large. Of course, I am sure it would be a PITA to set something like this up, and may have been mentioned before. BUT, it would make for a better proposition for others to join WISPA. Just thinking out loud, Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Patrick Shoemaker shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:29:09 -0400 I second AN wireless. Dan is great to work with. They stock Nello sections. -- Patrick Shoemaker Vector Data Systems LLC shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com office: (301) 358-1690 x36 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Scott Reed wrote: Nello for sure. AN Wireless in Pennsylvania, too. Gino Villarini wrote: We are looking to buy about 150' of Rohn 45 like tower Any preffered brand? Vendor? Nello? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 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 - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.1/2071 - Release Date: 04/21/09 08:30:00 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 E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Wireless High Speed Broadband service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $30.00/mth. Check out www.info-ed.com/wireless.html for information. 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] Wimax 802.16d v 802.16e
On Apr 21, 2009, at 7:29 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Chuck, That is defiantely a plus now. But isn't that like a false advantage in the long run? With only 20-30Mhz of spectrum, will it stay noise free for long? For some reason I thought it was 50 MHz of bandwidth, but in any case, the question is reasonable, and unanswerable. However, there is *some* protection for the band. Because you need a license (even if it's license light), you're not going to have Best Buy selling home phones, garage door openers, and indoor WAPs that get used outdoors messing up the spectrum. So I'd guess the situation won't be like what we see in 900, 2.4, and 5.8. in .16d you get to use 1 watt per MHz of channel size. How much watts per Mhz for 16e? I did a quick google for that but couldn't find it, even on the wimax.com web site. However, I know there's grumbling about the mobility play not being as useful as it could be due to the lack of power in .16e. On a side note, anyone know why FCC decided to reward people using larger channels with more power? It's been discussed before on the lists (I'd be willing to bet Scriv knows why, assuming it's correct in the first place) but I don't know the answer, and remember my iirc, meaning I've been told that by a manufacturer but I can't swear that it's an accurate statement. Chuck Wouldn't it have been more politically correct to reward those that used smaller more efficient channels with higher power, to give them a reason to be more efficient? I'm sure there is a technical reason, that I don't understand, yet. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Chuck Bartosch ch...@clarityconnect.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 6:59 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wimax 802.16d v 802.16e On Apr 21, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Michael Baird wrote: Have you deployed it? From my initial research, it appears that the bigger vendors Motorola/Alverion are supporting the 802.16e variety, while the smaller vendors such as Tranzeo are supporting the 802.16d variety. I'm aware of the advantages at the Mac Layer, but why would 802.16d at 3.65 with a slightly higher EIRP at 7 mhz channel spacing have better range then 802.11 variants at 2.4? Noise. You should get, iirc, a 20 db lower noise floor at 3.65. Also, (again, iirc), in .16d you get to use 1 watt per MHz of channel size. So with a 7 MHz channel you have 7 watts to work with. The noise floor alone is worth 100x the power, and the extra EIRP is just a bonus. Chuck The 802.16d unit specs I've looked at don't appear to scale much higher then the 2.4 units, but 802.16e appears to have the 2x2, 4x4 antenna tech that it seems would make a big difference at range. What's the magic that makes 802.16d work better then 802.11 variants as far as coverage, with essentially the same power but at a higher frequency? Regards Michael Baird Here is the quick answer: 802.16d is a fixed only technology (no mobility) which performs quite well for delivering broadband to homes and businesses. Highly available. Secure. More expensive, more scalable and somewhat higher latency than similar fixed technologies based on 802.11 and other proprietary systems similar to 802.11. Most prominently used in 3.65 GHz in the US. Heavily used in 3.5 GHz in international areas where no copper plant has been installed previously. Unique feature of this technology is the ability to provision service flows with predictable performance criteria. This enables SLA provisioning on wireless broadband virtual circuits and many other advantages over any other broadband platform (wireless or wired). 802.16e is a fixed and mobile platform. This is being used now in 2.5 GHz licensed band in the US and elsewhere. Very little has been done to take full advantage of mobility in this band. More expensive to deploy than 802.16d. Higher latency than 802.16d. This is a direct competitor to LTE systems for cellular. If you do not hold an exclusive licensee in 2.5 GHz then this is not likely an option for you at this time. For more input and more help take it to the memb...@wispa.org list for paid members and we can dig into it deeper including step by step instructions for getting your own 3.65 license and applying for locations. Scriv On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Michael Baird m...@tc3net.com wrote: I'm researching these two technologies and Wimax in general, does anyone have any firsthand experience with the two current different types of Wimax, or references to the differences in the two different types of technologies for broadband fixed rural deployments? Regards Michael Baird WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/
Re: [WISPA] Splash Page
We just send them to our credit card pay page - they get the idea... we redirect http traffic only so the rest of their traffic is unaffected unless the bill doesn't get taken care of after being redirected a short while... Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Ray Jean webbil...@surfmore.net Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:05 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Splash Page Does anyone have a page they use when you cut off a customer for non-payment and let them know that their internet has been suspended. Letting them know what to do to activate it again, like making a payment. Also, I want to have customers pay an insurance on their equipment, I seen one on this list about a year ago and saved the link to use later but it no longer works, I believe it was Mac Dearman. It was a great program and I would like to use it, if I can. Thanks so much for your help! Jean Hill Surfmore.Net 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/
