Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software
Corn and soybeans. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 12:32 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software That's a lot of green...where is this? On 9/24/09, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: Large green patches wouldn't work here. From May - September, everything in 300 miles is green. ;-) - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 5:03 PM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software I was holding this chunk of Organite and praying for such a thing and now here it is. Spooky. Get ready for the list, Shaddi. For one, this browser based software should not depend on the internet, yes? The term browser speaks internet to me. If I'm out in the field trying to figure out a link I obviously don't have internet there. Not that I see myself out in the middle of a corn field with my laptop trying to figure it out but hey, who knows. The basics of course is terrain and elevation but I'd like to see how a link over water is taken into account rolled into the thing. I also have to guess at trees. If I'm only able to get 70 feet or so up and the trees around here are also around 70 feet, it might say yes but the trees would say no. Could it possibly have a variable where you could set an average height for stands of trees? Where I am at, Southern Ohio, all the patches of trees are pretty much a single average height. If the software could distinguish a large green patch as trees and you tell the software that the average height is whatever, it could possibly add that height to the land elevation. Would be good to have a database of various antennas and radios to pull from as well. Hey! IDEA! A new game, Wireless Internet Tycoon!!! What do ya think? I've kinda ran off the rails here, sorry. You want a wish list? Grab some paper, pal. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Shaddi Hasan Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 5:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software Howdy WISPA! Just joined today but wanted to chime in -- some students here at UNC Chapel Hill are working on a browser-based link planning tool as a semester project. It will be released as open-source at the end of the semester, so we'd like it to be useful not only for our projects but for the community at large. While primarily geared towards community wireless projects, it'd be great if it could be useful for the professional WISP community. So, if you have any feedback on what features you'd like to see in such a tool, lessons you all have learned that should be incorporated into its design, or the concept generally, please contact me. To the OP, check back in December and we might have something to offer you! Shaddi On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: What are you folks using to verify the viability of a link before you plan the build? I've tried using Radio Mobile but I'll be darned if I can't get that thing to work even with the step by step instructions. I've been finding myself just plotting elevations all the way along the link in Google Earth. Sucks. Anyone using a good software app that will plot the links and give me the easy thumbs up or thumbs down? Sorry to be a pain with all these questions. It's been too hectic and I just don't have the time to sit for 2 days evaluating crap software. I'd rather be told what's good by real users. Thanks. Organite. It's not just for breakfast anymore. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/
Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software
I actually asked where - not what - but I was under the impression you meant trees =P Delorm was pretty good - costly but you can keep the maps locally IIRC. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.netwrote: Corn and soybeans. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 12:32 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software That's a lot of green...where is this? On 9/24/09, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: Large green patches wouldn't work here. From May - September, everything in 300 miles is green. ;-) - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 5:03 PM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software I was holding this chunk of Organite and praying for such a thing and now here it is. Spooky. Get ready for the list, Shaddi. For one, this browser based software should not depend on the internet, yes? The term browser speaks internet to me. If I'm out in the field trying to figure out a link I obviously don't have internet there. Not that I see myself out in the middle of a corn field with my laptop trying to figure it out but hey, who knows. The basics of course is terrain and elevation but I'd like to see how a link over water is taken into account rolled into the thing. I also have to guess at trees. If I'm only able to get 70 feet or so up and the trees around here are also around 70 feet, it might say yes but the trees would say no. Could it possibly have a variable where you could set an average height for stands of trees? Where I am at, Southern Ohio, all the patches of trees are pretty much a single average height. If the software could distinguish a large green patch as trees and you tell the software that the average height is whatever, it could possibly add that height to the land elevation. Would be good to have a database of various antennas and radios to pull from as well. Hey! IDEA! A new game, Wireless Internet Tycoon!!! What do ya think? I've kinda ran off the rails here, sorry. You want a wish list? Grab some paper, pal. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Shaddi Hasan Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 5:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software Howdy WISPA! Just joined today but wanted to chime in -- some students here at UNC Chapel Hill are working on a browser-based link planning tool as a semester project. It will be released as open-source at the end of the semester, so we'd like it to be useful not only for our projects but for the community at large. While primarily geared towards community wireless projects, it'd be great if it could be useful for the professional WISP community. So, if you have any feedback on what features you'd like to see in such a tool, lessons you all have learned that should be incorporated into its design, or the concept generally, please contact me. To the OP, check back in December and we might have something to offer you! Shaddi On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: What are you folks using to verify the viability of a link before you plan the build? I've tried using Radio Mobile but I'll be darned if I can't get that thing to work even with the step by step instructions. I've been finding myself just plotting elevations all the way along the link in Google Earth. Sucks. Anyone using a good software app that will plot the links and give me the easy thumbs up or thumbs down? Sorry to be a pain with all these questions. It's been too hectic and I just don't have the time to sit for 2 days evaluating crap software. I'd rather be told what's good by real users. Thanks. Organite. It's not just for breakfast anymore. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for
Where is everyone getting that you are allowed to prioritize anything? The speech details three points along the subject of prioritization. The Julius Genachowski's recent speech specifically said no prioritization--refer to section 5. - This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks (blocking / deprioritizing) - or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers’ homes (prioritizing) - During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out everyone else (block / degrade on a per-user basis, rather than per-application?) - Doesn't apply to managed services (I believe that he's referring to metro Ethernet with QOS) - open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. (As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences.) Where has any statement been made regarding prioritization being ok? Thanks, -Clint Ricker On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.netwrote: Right, which is why I phrased it that way. You can't deprioritize anything, but you can prioritize anything (based upon what I've read on this list). They accomplish the same thing, but at face value, one is permissible the other is not. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:53 PM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for You'd have to ask the FCC. Seems like it's the opposite side of the same coin. Jeff -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 1:51 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for What's the difference between prioritizing all traditional services above other and deprioritizing the bad ones below other? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:07 PM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for The FCC has said that you cannot de-prioritize any type of traffic. You have to do it by prioritizing other types of traffic. Jeff ImageStream -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Richardson Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for I read the Fifth as I cannot discriminate - meaning block this but not that. It says nothing about shaping. Jerry -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of David E. Smith Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for http://openinternet.gov/read-speech.html In addition to the four classic Network neutrality principles, the FCC plans to pursue two more. Quotes from the speech: * The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. * The sixth principle is a transparency principle -- stating that providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network management practices. I love the sixth one, but number five gives me the willies. Nope, doesn't matter that BitTorrent users bring your network to its knees, you're not allowed to do anything about it. Please tell me I'm missing something. 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 Wants You! Join today!
[WISPA] Dual Pol FDX Link Issue
I have a 18 mile 5GHz Link to 50MB fiber connection. Original config was a HDDA5W-29-DP, 26 Inch 29 dBi dual pol Pacwireless dish at each end, StarOS War2 boards with 2 XR5 using the StarOS FDX. The link has never performed well. 10meg x 5 was the best I could get running ½ duplex. The Horizontal had never worked right or so I thought. Recently we added another DCE and 2nd WAR board at each end to reduce self interference and realigned the Antennas. We setup a MTIK at each end and did Pseudo FDX through them. No better. If we run FDX the Horizontal all but crashes so we set it back to 1/2 . Yesterday we tried something new. We set our routing so that our inbound come up the Vertical of FDX link and outbound goes out a second link. I then got 20 Meg across the Vertical link. I switched to the horizontal link for inbound, 20 meg. I switched direction outbound through the FDX link 20MB. This was making no sense. We bonded the Vert and Hor together still going just one direction and the speed fell to 6MB. Put it back to FDX reset route tables and with a heavy speed test and lots of customer traffic all we could get was 3MB down 1MB up. We have tried all types of Channels Hor is on 5825 and Vert is on 5240 so there is plenty of separation. Signal is -57 with a -96 floor. Currently I am running Inbound through the Vertical side and Outbound through the other path I have which all returns back to the same NOC getting me 20Mb x 15Mb, but I don't like that setup for failover and tracert issues. Not sure all my VPN clients will like it either. So any one have any Ideas? There has to be an issue with the Antennas I think but the installer has these same antennas being used else ware on spectra link radios and getting 100MB FDX. I cant just change antennas, One end is on a CrowneCastle tower and I have to do a full new engineer fee to change anything. What can I try next? Steve RC-WiFi 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] Dual Pol FDX Link Issue
Are you running the XR5's at full power? Have you tried dialing down the tx power? We had a similar issue with some dual-pol antennas and had to turn the tx power down to less than 14db. -Original Message- From: Steve Barnes [mailto:st...@pcswin.com] Sent: 24 September 2009 12:46 To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Dual Pol FDX Link Issue I have a 18 mile 5GHz Link to 50MB fiber connection. Original config was a HDDA5W-29-DP, 26 Inch 29 dBi dual pol Pacwireless dish at each end, StarOS War2 boards with 2 XR5 using the StarOS FDX. The link has never performed well. 10meg x 5 was the best I could get running ½ duplex. The Horizontal had never worked right or so I thought. Recently we added another DCE and 2nd WAR board at each end to reduce self interference and realigned the Antennas. We setup a MTIK at each end and did Pseudo FDX through them. No better. If we run FDX the Horizontal all but crashes so we set it back to 1/2 . Yesterday we tried something new. We set our routing so that our inbound come up the Vertical of FDX link and outbound goes out a second link. I then got 20 Meg across the Vertical link. I switched to the horizontal link for inbound, 20 meg. I switched direction outbound through the FDX link 20MB. This was making no sense. We bonded the Vert and Hor together still going just one direction and the speed fell to 6MB. Put it back to FDX reset route tables and with a heavy speed test and lots of customer traffic all we could get was 3MB down 1MB up. We have tried all types of Channels Hor is on 5825 and Vert is on 5240 so there is plenty of separation. Signal is -57 with a -96 floor. Currently I am running Inbound through the Vertical side and Outbound through the other path I have which all returns back to the same NOC getting me 20Mb x 15Mb, but I don't like that setup for failover and tracert issues. Not sure all my VPN clients will like it either. So any one have any Ideas? There has to be an issue with the Antennas I think but the installer has these same antennas being used else ware on spectra link radios and getting 100MB FDX. I cant just change antennas, One end is on a CrowneCastle tower and I have to do a full new engineer fee to change anything. What can I try next? Steve RC-WiFi WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Dual Pol FDX Link Issue
We did not try that this time in the past we have had them down as low as 12 but the signal got worse and no real improvement in speed. They are currently at 14. Steve Barnes RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 6:50 AM To: wireless Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Pol FDX Link Issue Are you running the XR5's at full power? Have you tried dialing down the tx power? We had a similar issue with some dual-pol antennas and had to turn the tx power down to less than 14db. -Original Message- From: Steve Barnes [mailto:st...@pcswin.com] Sent: 24 September 2009 12:46 To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Dual Pol FDX Link Issue I have a 18 mile 5GHz Link to 50MB fiber connection. Original config was a HDDA5W-29-DP, 26 Inch 29 dBi dual pol Pacwireless dish at each end, StarOS War2 boards with 2 XR5 using the StarOS FDX. The link has never performed well. 10meg x 5 was the best I could get running ½ duplex. The Horizontal had never worked right or so I thought. Recently we added another DCE and 2nd WAR board at each end to reduce self interference and realigned the Antennas. We setup a MTIK at each end and did Pseudo FDX through them. No better. If we run FDX the Horizontal all but crashes so we set it back to 1/2 . Yesterday we tried something new. We set our routing so that our inbound come up the Vertical of FDX link and outbound goes out a second link. I then got 20 Meg across the Vertical link. I switched to the horizontal link for inbound, 20 meg. I switched direction outbound through the FDX link 20MB. This was making no sense. We bonded the Vert and Hor together still going just one direction and the speed fell to 6MB. Put it back to FDX reset route tables and with a heavy speed test and lots of customer traffic all we could get was 3MB down 1MB up. We have tried all types of Channels Hor is on 5825 and Vert is on 5240 so there is plenty of separation. Signal is -57 with a -96 floor. Currently I am running Inbound through the Vertical side and Outbound through the other path I have which all returns back to the same NOC getting me 20Mb x 15Mb, but I don't like that setup for failover and tracert issues. Not sure all my VPN clients will like it either. So any one have any Ideas? There has to be an issue with the Antennas I think but the installer has these same antennas being used else ware on spectra link radios and getting 100MB FDX. I cant just change antennas, One end is on a CrowneCastle tower and I have to do a full new engineer fee to change anything. What can I try next? Steve RC-WiFi WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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] Net Neutrality
I am all too aware of the weakness of wireless networks in regards to streaming of video. That said, I cannot see how over the top video is a bad thing for independent ISPs, even if wireless technology has to make some progress to handle it. It removes triple play as a competitive advantage for your competitors and hurts them a LOT more than it costs the independent ISPs. If anything, independent ISPs (especially wireline independent ISPs) should be advertising Internet access, includes 10 million channels for FREE and get people to shift the $1,500-$2,000 a year that they are spending on triple play packages over your way. -Clint Ricker On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:06 AM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: This is imminent. The questions is: whose network? -RickG On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com wrote: One thing you can bank on, it WILL take hold. The need for more Bandwidth won't be stopped anytime soon, I believe. Eventually most if not all communications will run over the same network, which if you think about it, all the communications out there seem to touch the internet at least in part. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 9:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality For the mainstream ISPs (the big RBOCs and MSOs), their bandwidth costs are very, very low and are a small fraction of their overall costs. However, that statement does ignore the costs of perpetually upgrading their network to handle larger volumes of bandwidth. From a cost perspective, that is the main motivation for the big players to shape traffic. However, even that is small compared to the potential loss of revenue if over the top video takes hold. -Clint On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote: It's back http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews I am just waiting for them to say bitcaps are a no no. When you think about it with a bit cap you cannot really use the Internet to completely replace the catv or dish service. Some consumers I am sure are going to say that's not fair and some clueless law makers will likely believe them. I have already heard some 'expert' IT people on blogs brag that bandwidth costs ISP's virtually nothing and the only reason for bitcaps is to prevent competing video services from taking market share. Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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] Dual Pol FDX Link Issue
I'm using R52N's on a link that is 28 Miles. Using the same Dish. I have -60's on the signal, and we can do ~50MBit+ across the link. My first guess is alignment. We had XR5's on the link, and it was -50. At that distance with those cards/antennas, your signal should be a little better. Also could be a bad jumper. Also, we had a few clients on the distribution side of our business complain that those dishes are not performing for them, but we have not seen any direct issue. With MikroTik you can run NStreme and really optimize the link or use the new N cards and get even better performance. Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Steve Barnes Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Pol FDX Link Issue We did not try that this time in the past we have had them down as low as 12 but the signal got worse and no real improvement in speed. They are currently at 14. Steve Barnes RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 6:50 AM To: wireless Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Pol FDX Link Issue Are you running the XR5's at full power? Have you tried dialing down the tx power? We had a similar issue with some dual-pol antennas and had to turn the tx power down to less than 14db. -Original Message- From: Steve Barnes [mailto:st...@pcswin.com] Sent: 24 September 2009 12:46 To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Dual Pol FDX Link Issue I have a 18 mile 5GHz Link to 50MB fiber connection. Original config was a HDDA5W-29-DP, 26 Inch 29 dBi dual pol Pacwireless dish at each end, StarOS War2 boards with 2 XR5 using the StarOS FDX. The link has never performed well. 10meg x 5 was the best I could get running ½ duplex. The Horizontal had never worked right or so I thought. Recently we added another DCE and 2nd WAR board at each end to reduce self interference and realigned the Antennas. We setup a MTIK at each end and did Pseudo FDX through them. No better. If we run FDX the Horizontal all but crashes so we set it back to 1/2 . Yesterday we tried something new. We set our routing so that our inbound come up the Vertical of FDX link and outbound goes out a second link. I then got 20 Meg across the Vertical link. I switched to the horizontal link for inbound, 20 meg. I switched direction outbound through the FDX link 20MB. This was making no sense. We bonded the Vert and Hor together still going just one direction and the speed fell to 6MB. Put it back to FDX reset route tables and with a heavy speed test and lots of customer traffic all we could get was 3MB down 1MB up. We have tried all types of Channels Hor is on 5825 and Vert is on 5240 so there is plenty of separation. Signal is -57 with a -96 floor. Currently I am running Inbound through the Vertical side and Outbound through the other path I have which all returns back to the same NOC getting me 20Mb x 15Mb, but I don't like that setup for failover and tracert issues. Not sure all my VPN clients will like it either. So any one have any Ideas? There has to be an issue with the Antennas I think but the installer has these same antennas being used else ware on spectra link radios and getting 100MB FDX. I cant just change antennas, One end is on a CrowneCastle tower and I have to do a full new engineer fee to change anything. What can I try next? Steve RC-WiFi WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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] Dual Pol FDX Link Issue
I am fairly familiar with Steve's issues. I have thought jumper/pigtail for a while, but pretty much ruled that out when then did the unidirectional tests and both links jump to 12M. Any thoughts on which cable may be the issue? They did realign the antennas recently. I know they were supposed to do both azimuth and up/downtilt alignment. Chuck Hogg wrote: I'm using R52N's on a link that is 28 Miles. Using the same Dish. I have -60's on the signal, and we can do ~50MBit+ across the link. My first guess is alignment. We had XR5's on the link, and it was -50. At that distance with those cards/antennas, your signal should be a little better. Also could be a bad jumper. Also, we had a few clients on the distribution side of our business complain that those dishes are not performing for them, but we have not seen any direct issue. With MikroTik you can run NStreme and really optimize the link or use the new N cards and get even better performance. Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Steve Barnes Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Pol FDX Link Issue We did not try that this time in the past we have had them down as low as 12 but the signal got worse and no real improvement in speed. They are currently at 14. Steve Barnes RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 6:50 AM To: wireless Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Pol FDX Link Issue Are you running the XR5's at full power? Have you tried dialing down the tx power? We had a similar issue with some dual-pol antennas and had to turn the tx power down to less than 14db. -Original Message- From: Steve Barnes [mailto:st...@pcswin.com] Sent: 24 September 2009 12:46 To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Dual Pol FDX Link Issue I have a 18 mile 5GHz Link to 50MB fiber connection. Original config was a HDDA5W-29-DP, 26 Inch 29 dBi dual pol Pacwireless dish at each end, StarOS War2 boards with 2 XR5 using the StarOS FDX. The link has never performed well. 10meg x 5 was the best I could get running ½ duplex. The Horizontal had never worked right or so I thought. Recently we added another DCE and 2nd WAR board at each end to reduce self interference and realigned the Antennas. We setup a MTIK at each end and did Pseudo FDX through them. No better. If we run FDX the Horizontal all but crashes so we set it back to 1/2 . Yesterday we tried something new. We set our routing so that our inbound come up the Vertical of FDX link and outbound goes out a second link. I then got 20 Meg across the Vertical link. I switched to the horizontal link for inbound, 20 meg. I switched direction outbound through the FDX link 20MB. This was making no sense. We bonded the Vert and Hor together still going just one direction and the speed fell to 6MB. Put it back to FDX reset route tables and with a heavy speed test and lots of customer traffic all we could get was 3MB down 1MB up. We have tried all types of Channels Hor is on 5825 and Vert is on 5240 so there is plenty of separation. Signal is -57 with a -96 floor. Currently I am running Inbound through the Vertical side and Outbound through the other path I have which all returns back to the same NOC getting me 20Mb x 15Mb, but I don't like that setup for failover and tracert issues. Not sure all my VPN clients will like it either. So any one have any Ideas? There has to be an issue with the Antennas I think but the installer has these same antennas being used else ware on spectra link radios and getting 100MB FDX. I cant just change antennas, One end is on a CrowneCastle tower and I have to do a full new engineer fee to change anything. What can I try next? Steve RC-WiFi 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: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.112/2392 - Release Date: 09/24/09 05:52:00 -- Scott Reed Sr. Systems Engineer GAB Midwest 1-800-363-1544 x4000 Cell: 260-273-7239 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
Re: [WISPA] Dual Pol FDX Link Issue
I was just thinking that a link that is almost 10 miles shorter should have a better signal than what we achieved over 28 miles. I really don't know what to expect out of a StarOS link, as I haven't used it for that kind of distance. Not knocking one over the other, I just don't know. Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Reed Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:32 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Pol FDX Link Issue I am fairly familiar with Steve's issues. I have thought jumper/pigtail for a while, but pretty much ruled that out when then did the unidirectional tests and both links jump to 12M. Any thoughts on which cable may be the issue? They did realign the antennas recently. I know they were supposed to do both azimuth and up/downtilt alignment. Chuck Hogg wrote: I'm using R52N's on a link that is 28 Miles. Using the same Dish. I have -60's on the signal, and we can do ~50MBit+ across the link. My first guess is alignment. We had XR5's on the link, and it was -50. At that distance with those cards/antennas, your signal should be a little better. Also could be a bad jumper. Also, we had a few clients on the distribution side of our business complain that those dishes are not performing for them, but we have not seen any direct issue. With MikroTik you can run NStreme and really optimize the link or use the new N cards and get even better performance. Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Steve Barnes Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Pol FDX Link Issue We did not try that this time in the past we have had them down as low as 12 but the signal got worse and no real improvement in speed. They are currently at 14. Steve Barnes RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Paul Hendry Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 6:50 AM To: wireless Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Pol FDX Link Issue Are you running the XR5's at full power? Have you tried dialing down the tx power? We had a similar issue with some dual-pol antennas and had to turn the tx power down to less than 14db. -Original Message- From: Steve Barnes [mailto:st...@pcswin.com] Sent: 24 September 2009 12:46 To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Dual Pol FDX Link Issue I have a 18 mile 5GHz Link to 50MB fiber connection. Original config was a HDDA5W-29-DP, 26 Inch 29 dBi dual pol Pacwireless dish at each end, StarOS War2 boards with 2 XR5 using the StarOS FDX. The link has never performed well. 10meg x 5 was the best I could get running ½ duplex. The Horizontal had never worked right or so I thought. Recently we added another DCE and 2nd WAR board at each end to reduce self interference and realigned the Antennas. We setup a MTIK at each end and did Pseudo FDX through them. No better. If we run FDX the Horizontal all but crashes so we set it back to 1/2 . Yesterday we tried something new. We set our routing so that our inbound come up the Vertical of FDX link and outbound goes out a second link. I then got 20 Meg across the Vertical link. I switched to the horizontal link for inbound, 20 meg. I switched direction outbound through the FDX link 20MB. This was making no sense. We bonded the Vert and Hor together still going just one direction and the speed fell to 6MB. Put it back to FDX reset route tables and with a heavy speed test and lots of customer traffic all we could get was 3MB down 1MB up. We have tried all types of Channels Hor is on 5825 and Vert is on 5240 so there is plenty of separation. Signal is -57 with a -96 floor. Currently I am running Inbound through the Vertical side and Outbound through the other path I have which all returns back to the same NOC getting me 20Mb x 15Mb, but I don't like that setup for failover and tracert issues. Not sure all my VPN clients will like it either. So any one have any Ideas? There has to be an issue with the Antennas I think but the installer has these same antennas being used else ware on spectra link radios and getting 100MB FDX. I cant just change antennas, One end is on a CrowneCastle tower and I have to do a full new engineer fee to change anything. What can I try next? Steve RC-WiFi WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless
Re: [WISPA] license for amplifier?
you decide the level of service, personally I think the amplifier is the worst choice, I would prefer to use the devices on the tower (and yes we have devices on tower with ice). But you asked for the electronic on the bottom (i.e. all passive) then you have to choose what is the best trade off for you. Having the electronics on the bottom is a very good thing, anybody can go there to see what's wrong and it's easier to work during storms or bad weather. But it has a high cost. Personally I would suggest, instead of having the things on the bottom, to install twin devices on the tower. In case one goes down you have the other one. This is easy to implement and very quick BUT it is not what you asked in your last email. We do that and we find it a decent trade off. Bye. For a 1/2 dozen subs? I should probably put in a backup generator too! On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Paolo Di Francesco paolo.difrance...@teleinform.com wrote: then try to go with guide not with coaxial cable. In this way on the tower you will have all-passive hardware. just my 2cents Ya thats not bad. The other problem with this tower is that because of the terrain, you cant get a bucket near it for most of the year. So, I was just trying to keep the electonics at the bottom. The other end is only about 2 miles so I bet I can squeeze enough signal with XR5 and no amp. Thanks to all! -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Dennis Burgess dmburg...@linktechs.net wrote: ?? Lets see a 433 with two radio cards would be a few hundred for a complete repeater :) --- Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer WISPA Board Member - wispa.org Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services WISPA Vendor Member Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training Author of Learn RouterOS -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:09 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] license for amplifier? Gotcha. Unfortunately, this tower only has a half dozen subs. The cost of those options prohibit use in this scenario. Thanks again. -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: FCC friendly backhaul options as was suggested. The alternative in case you're unable to use an amplifier. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:02 PM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: Josh, Thanks for the link to a beautiful chart but what does it have to do with an amp? -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Microwave Backhaul Comparison Chart - WISPTech http://www.wisptech.com/index.php/Microwave_Backhaul_Comparison_Chart Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM, jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com wrote: Big thank you to L-com. Use a POE based backhaul product to avoid cable loss. The amp will also hurt your noise floor by amplifying interference/noise as well. If you are concerened about unreliability of having electronics atop the tower with regard to a POE radio solution, an amp is electronics atop the tower, so that argument doesn't hold water. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:59:11AM -0400, RickG wrote: I am planning to install a 5Ghz backhaul from my main tower to a remote. It will have the antenna on the top, 150' of LMR-400 and the radio at the bottom. To make up for the loss, I ordered a 500mw amp from L-Com. Unfortunately, they cancelled the order saying I need a HAM license to purchase it. I thought unlicensed freqs dont require a license? -RickG -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Teleinform S.p.A. Sede Legale: Via Francesco Paolo Di Blasi 1, 90144 Palermo Unita' Operativa: Via Regione Siciliana 49, 90046 Monreale (Palermo) Tel: +39-091-6408576, +39-091-6404501 Fax: +39-091-6406200 http://www.wikitel.it http://www.teleinform.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/
Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for
Take a look at the third and the fifth bullet points. --C Clint Ricker wrote: Where is everyone getting that you are allowed to prioritize anything? The speech details three points along the subject of prioritization. The Julius Genachowski's recent speech specifically said no prioritization--refer to section 5. - This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks (blocking / deprioritizing) - or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers' homes (prioritizing) - During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out everyone else (block / degrade on a per-user basis, rather than per-application?) - Doesn't apply to managed services (I believe that he's referring to metro Ethernet with QOS) - open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. (As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences.) Where has any statement been made regarding prioritization being ok? Thanks, -Clint Ricker On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.netwrote: Right, which is why I phrased it that way. You can't deprioritize anything, but you can prioritize anything (based upon what I've read on this list). They accomplish the same thing, but at face value, one is permissible the other is not. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:53 PM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for You'd have to ask the FCC. Seems like it's the opposite side of the same coin. Jeff -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 1:51 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for What's the difference between prioritizing all traditional services above other and deprioritizing the bad ones below other? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:07 PM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for The FCC has said that you cannot de-prioritize any type of traffic. You have to do it by prioritizing other types of traffic. Jeff ImageStream -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Richardson Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for I read the Fifth as I cannot discriminate - meaning block this but not that. It says nothing about shaping. Jerry -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of David E. Smith Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for http://openinternet.gov/read-speech.html In addition to the four classic Network neutrality principles, the FCC plans to pursue two more. Quotes from the speech: * The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. * The sixth principle is a transparency principle -- stating that providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network management practices. I love the sixth one, but number five gives me the willies. Nope, doesn't matter that BitTorrent users bring your network to its knees, you're not allowed to do anything about it. Please tell me I'm missing something. 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/
Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for
The language of point 3 is targetting heavy users, not applications that may be heavy under some, even common, circumstances. While it seems like a small detail, it is, in fact, a big distinction--why should I be blocked from using bit torrent to download a gutenberg ebook (ie legal small) because my neighbor is doing warez full throttle, 24/7/365? Genachowski specifically alluded to Comcast degrading bit torrent traffic, something that Comcast claimed to be doing for reasons of network management and blocking of illegal content. Waving the illegal content flag is, in my opinion, very short sighted: - Legal video streaming services (hulu, netflix on demand) are rising. These are worse, in a lot of ways, than the bit torrent model since it requires a sustained throughput to provide a usable customer experience. They also often use HTTP or other common protocols. - Bit Torrent itself is trending more legal; major content providers and software companies are using it for legal distribution of content while the illegal content is making its way to other networks that are more secure / private - Last, but certainly not least, content providers are VERY eager to sign up the ISPs as content cops. Once you start down that road, you may very well find yourself as an operator having given away your own safe harbor rights and having the legal obligation to police your network for bad content. In general, it's hard to not see the WISPs taking the side of major MSOs, RBOCs, and content providers as a dangerous game. It's one thing to decide to block bit torrent because it carries a large percentage of illegal content. It's another thing when you have to implement, at your own expense, url / ip filtering, install deep packet inspection hardware (VERY expensive), and other extensive, expensive, and very time consuming process or face repeated and ongoing liability every time some kid on your network wants to duck out on paying 99c for an mp3. The content providers have been pushing for this for years; if ISPs start dancing the same tune to win the right to do some occasional fiddling with some packets, it would likely shift the balance of power. Given that many of the major service providers (Comcast, Time Warner, etc...) are also major content providers meaning that the expenses of manditory content filtering carried by the service provider business are offset by potential increases in profitability for the content producing side of the house. You, on the other hand, have nothing to gain here. You thought CALEA was bad? -Clint Ricker On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com wrote: Take a look at the third and the fifth bullet points. --C Clint Ricker wrote: Where is everyone getting that you are allowed to prioritize anything? The speech details three points along the subject of prioritization. The Julius Genachowski's recent speech specifically said no prioritization--refer to section 5. - This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks (blocking / deprioritizing) - or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers' homes (prioritizing) - During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out everyone else (block / degrade on a per-user basis, rather than per-application?) - Doesn't apply to managed services (I believe that he's referring to metro Ethernet with QOS) - open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. (As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences.) Where has any statement been made regarding prioritization being ok? Thanks, -Clint Ricker On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: Right, which is why I phrased it that way. You can't deprioritize anything, but you can prioritize anything (based upon what I've read on this list). They accomplish the same thing, but at face value, one is permissible the other is not. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Jeff Broadwick jeffl...@comcast.net Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:53 PM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for You'd have to ask the FCC. Seems like it's the opposite side of the same coin. Jeff -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software
I use National Geographic's Topo! software. It works quite well. Just toss the contents of the CD-ROM into the same folder as the software and you don't need the CD-ROM at all. ryan On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Blair Davis the...@wmwisp.net wrote: It may sound stupid, but I use Delorm Topo 4 Plot your endpoints, draw a line and look at the trerrian profile. Add the antenna heights and you should have a real good idea if it will work or not. I played with Radio Mobile for a long time. It works, but Delorm is faster and eaiser for PtP links. Robert West wrote: What are you folks using to verify the viability of a link before you plan the build? I've tried using Radio Mobile but I'll be darned if I can't get that thing to work even with the step by step instructions. I've been finding myself just plotting elevations all the way along the link in Google Earth. Sucks. Anyone using a good software app that will plot the links and give me the easy thumbs up or thumbs down? Sorry to be a pain with all these questions. It's been too hectic and I just don't have the time to sit for 2 days evaluating crap software. I'd rather be told what's good by real users. Thanks. Organite. It's not just for breakfast anymore. 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] NanoStation 2.4 b/g
Does anyone know where I can get a couple NS2 units? Seems no one has stock. Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] NanoStation 2.4 b/g
Does anyone know where I can get a couple NS2 units? Seems no one has stock. Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for
Which goes to point 5. services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences.) Clint Ricker wrote: The language of point 3 is targetting heavy users, not applications that may be heavy under some, even common, circumstances. While it seems like a small detail, it is, in fact, a big distinction--why should I be blocked from using bit torrent to download a gutenberg ebook (ie legal small) because my neighbor is doing warez full throttle, 24/7/365? Genachowski specifically alluded to Comcast degrading bit torrent traffic, something that Comcast claimed to be doing for reasons of network management and blocking of illegal content. Waving the illegal content flag is, in my opinion, very short sighted: - Legal video streaming services (hulu, netflix on demand) are rising. These are worse, in a lot of ways, than the bit torrent model since it requires a sustained throughput to provide a usable customer experience. They also often use HTTP or other common protocols. - Bit Torrent itself is trending more legal; major content providers and software companies are using it for legal distribution of content while the illegal content is making its way to other networks that are more secure / private - Last, but certainly not least, content providers are VERY eager to sign up the ISPs as content cops. Once you start down that road, you may very well find yourself as an operator having given away your own safe harbor rights and having the legal obligation to police your network for bad content. In general, it's hard to not see the WISPs taking the side of major MSOs, RBOCs, and content providers as a dangerous game. It's one thing to decide to block bit torrent because it carries a large percentage of illegal content. It's another thing when you have to implement, at your own expense, url / ip filtering, install deep packet inspection hardware (VERY expensive), and other extensive, expensive, and very time consuming process or face repeated and ongoing liability every time some kid on your network wants to duck out on paying 99c for an mp3. The content providers have been pushing for this for years; if ISPs start dancing the same tune to win the right to do some occasional fiddling with some packets, it would likely shift the balance of power. Given that many of the major service providers (Comcast, Time Warner, etc...) are also major content providers meaning that the expenses of manditory content filtering carried by the service provider business are offset by potential increases in profitability for the content producing side of the house. You, on the other hand, have nothing to gain here. You thought CALEA was bad? -Clint Ricker On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com wrote: Take a look at the third and the fifth bullet points. --C Clint Ricker wrote: Where is everyone getting that you are allowed to prioritize anything? The speech details three points along the subject of prioritization. The Julius Genachowski's recent speech specifically said no prioritization--refer to section 5. - This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks (blocking / deprioritizing) - or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers' homes (prioritizing) - During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out everyone else (block / degrade on a per-user basis, rather than per-application?) - Doesn't apply to managed services (I believe that he's referring to metro Ethernet with QOS) - open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. (As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences.) Where has any statement been made regarding prioritization being ok? Thanks, -Clint Ricker On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: Right, which is why I phrased it that way. You can't deprioritize anything, but you can prioritize anything (based upon what I've read on this list). They accomplish the same thing, but at face value, one is permissible the other is not. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Jeff Broadwick
Re: [WISPA] NanoStation 2.4 b/g
See if MicroCom has a few - sometimes Cayman runs out a few days behind everyone else. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone know where I can get a couple NS2 units? Seems no one has stock. Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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] 2.4 Sector Recommendations
Never use cheap antennas! They cost far too much money in the long run. I like the maxrad units. Not cheap but not really expensive either. marlon - Original Message - From: Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 7:35 AM Subject: [WISPA] 2.4 Sector Recommendations Looking for recommendations for 2.4ghz sector antennas, cheap of course. Thanks! Robert West 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] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for
Again, point 5. - open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. Of course, how do you know that bittorrent user isn't distributing GNU licensed material rather than superhotxxxmovie (c)2009 by superhotxxxmoviecompany.com? There's the rub. --C Clint Ricker wrote: The language of point 3 is targetting heavy users, not applications that may be heavy under some, even common, circumstances. While it seems like a small detail, it is, in fact, a big distinction--why should I be blocked from using bit torrent to download a gutenberg ebook (ie legal small) because my neighbor is doing warez full throttle, 24/7/365? Genachowski specifically alluded to Comcast degrading bit torrent traffic, something that Comcast claimed to be doing for reasons of network management and blocking of illegal content. Waving the illegal content flag is, in my opinion, very short sighted: - Legal video streaming services (hulu, netflix on demand) are rising. These are worse, in a lot of ways, than the bit torrent model since it requires a sustained throughput to provide a usable customer experience. They also often use HTTP or other common protocols. - Bit Torrent itself is trending more legal; major content providers and software companies are using it for legal distribution of content while the illegal content is making its way to other networks that are more secure / private - Last, but certainly not least, content providers are VERY eager to sign up the ISPs as content cops. Once you start down that road, you may very well find yourself as an operator having given away your own safe harbor rights and having the legal obligation to police your network for bad content. In general, it's hard to not see the WISPs taking the side of major MSOs, RBOCs, and content providers as a dangerous game. It's one thing to decide to block bit torrent because it carries a large percentage of illegal content. It's another thing when you have to implement, at your own expense, url / ip filtering, install deep packet inspection hardware (VERY expensive), and other extensive, expensive, and very time consuming process or face repeated and ongoing liability every time some kid on your network wants to duck out on paying 99c for an mp3. The content providers have been pushing for this for years; if ISPs start dancing the same tune to win the right to do some occasional fiddling with some packets, it would likely shift the balance of power. Given that many of the major service providers (Comcast, Time Warner, etc...) are also major content providers meaning that the expenses of manditory content filtering carried by the service provider business are offset by potential increases in profitability for the content producing side of the house. You, on the other hand, have nothing to gain here. You thought CALEA was bad? -Clint Ricker On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com wrote: Take a look at the third and the fifth bullet points. --C Clint Ricker wrote: Where is everyone getting that you are allowed to prioritize anything? The speech details three points along the subject of prioritization. The Julius Genachowski's recent speech specifically said no prioritization--refer to section 5. - This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks (blocking / deprioritizing) - or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers' homes (prioritizing) - During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out everyone else (block / degrade on a per-user basis, rather than per-application?) - Doesn't apply to managed services (I believe that he's referring to metro Ethernet with QOS) - open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. (As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences.) Where has any statement been made regarding prioritization being ok? Thanks, -Clint Ricker On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: Right, which is why I phrased it that way. You can't deprioritize anything, but you can prioritize anything (based upon what I've read on this list). They accomplish the same thing, but at face
Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for
Also, define and prove serious economic consequences. The argument of some users is that if it wasn't online for free illegally they wouldn't obtain at any cost. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.comwrote: Again, point 5. - open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. Of course, how do you know that bittorrent user isn't distributing GNU licensed material rather than superhotxxxmovie (c)2009 by superhotxxxmoviecompany.com? There's the rub. --C Clint Ricker wrote: The language of point 3 is targetting heavy users, not applications that may be heavy under some, even common, circumstances. While it seems like a small detail, it is, in fact, a big distinction--why should I be blocked from using bit torrent to download a gutenberg ebook (ie legal small) because my neighbor is doing warez full throttle, 24/7/365? Genachowski specifically alluded to Comcast degrading bit torrent traffic, something that Comcast claimed to be doing for reasons of network management and blocking of illegal content. Waving the illegal content flag is, in my opinion, very short sighted: - Legal video streaming services (hulu, netflix on demand) are rising. These are worse, in a lot of ways, than the bit torrent model since it requires a sustained throughput to provide a usable customer experience. They also often use HTTP or other common protocols. - Bit Torrent itself is trending more legal; major content providers and software companies are using it for legal distribution of content while the illegal content is making its way to other networks that are more secure / private - Last, but certainly not least, content providers are VERY eager to sign up the ISPs as content cops. Once you start down that road, you may very well find yourself as an operator having given away your own safe harbor rights and having the legal obligation to police your network for bad content. In general, it's hard to not see the WISPs taking the side of major MSOs, RBOCs, and content providers as a dangerous game. It's one thing to decide to block bit torrent because it carries a large percentage of illegal content. It's another thing when you have to implement, at your own expense, url / ip filtering, install deep packet inspection hardware (VERY expensive), and other extensive, expensive, and very time consuming process or face repeated and ongoing liability every time some kid on your network wants to duck out on paying 99c for an mp3. The content providers have been pushing for this for years; if ISPs start dancing the same tune to win the right to do some occasional fiddling with some packets, it would likely shift the balance of power. Given that many of the major service providers (Comcast, Time Warner, etc...) are also major content providers meaning that the expenses of manditory content filtering carried by the service provider business are offset by potential increases in profitability for the content producing side of the house. You, on the other hand, have nothing to gain here. You thought CALEA was bad? -Clint Ricker On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com wrote: Take a look at the third and the fifth bullet points. --C Clint Ricker wrote: Where is everyone getting that you are allowed to prioritize anything? The speech details three points along the subject of prioritization. The Julius Genachowski's recent speech specifically said no prioritization--refer to section 5. - This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks (blocking / deprioritizing) - or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers' homes (prioritizing) - During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out everyone else (block / degrade on a per-user basis, rather than per-application?) - Doesn't apply to managed services (I believe that he's referring to metro Ethernet with QOS) - open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. (As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful
Re: [WISPA] 2.4 Sector Recommendations
Thanks, Marlon. I'll look into those. I know what you mean about Cheap, I was just meaning inexpensive yet good. If I was really cheap I could always go eBay! YIKES! Or make my own with some aluminum foil, some metal buckets and elmers glue. Wouldn't work but they would be cheap. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:35 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2.4 Sector Recommendations Never use cheap antennas! They cost far too much money in the long run. I like the maxrad units. Not cheap but not really expensive either. marlon - Original Message - From: Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 7:35 AM Subject: [WISPA] 2.4 Sector Recommendations Looking for recommendations for 2.4ghz sector antennas, cheap of course. Thanks! Robert West 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] Net Neutrality
I've looked into doing traditional TV over IP and wireless networks... You can't obtain a license for traditional TV over wireless networks. I wouldn't mind coming up with a half assed list of places of good video content. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Clint Ricker cric...@kentnis.com Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 7:11 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality I am all too aware of the weakness of wireless networks in regards to streaming of video. That said, I cannot see how over the top video is a bad thing for independent ISPs, even if wireless technology has to make some progress to handle it. It removes triple play as a competitive advantage for your competitors and hurts them a LOT more than it costs the independent ISPs. If anything, independent ISPs (especially wireline independent ISPs) should be advertising Internet access, includes 10 million channels for FREE and get people to shift the $1,500-$2,000 a year that they are spending on triple play packages over your way. -Clint Ricker On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:06 AM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: This is imminent. The questions is: whose network? -RickG On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com wrote: One thing you can bank on, it WILL take hold. The need for more Bandwidth won't be stopped anytime soon, I believe. Eventually most if not all communications will run over the same network, which if you think about it, all the communications out there seem to touch the internet at least in part. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 9:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality For the mainstream ISPs (the big RBOCs and MSOs), their bandwidth costs are very, very low and are a small fraction of their overall costs. However, that statement does ignore the costs of perpetually upgrading their network to handle larger volumes of bandwidth. From a cost perspective, that is the main motivation for the big players to shape traffic. However, even that is small compared to the potential loss of revenue if over the top video takes hold. -Clint On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote: It's back http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews I am just waiting for them to say bitcaps are a no no. When you think about it with a bit cap you cannot really use the Internet to completely replace the catv or dish service. Some consumers I am sure are going to say that's not fair and some clueless law makers will likely believe them. I have already heard some 'expert' IT people on blogs brag that bandwidth costs ISP's virtually nothing and the only reason for bitcaps is to prevent competing video services from taking market share. Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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/
Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software
Why not contract with Brian Webster for a couple of hours. He's a true expert with the software and it won't take much for him to help you through the rough patches...and probably show you tricks you'd never figure out on your own. His contact info is: Brian Webster (607) 286-3465 work (607) 435-3988 cell bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com Chuck On Sep 23, 2009, at 6:18 PM, Robert West wrote: You know, I haven't a clue! It looks simple, heck yes! Everyone says it's easy but I'll be darned if I can't get anything out of it. Now you also have to understand, when I try to work with it I have 3 kids, a cat and the wife all wanting something. Time was not well spent when I've tried it. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of David E. Smith Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 5:45 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software Robert West wrote: What are you folks using to verify the viability of a link before you plan the build? I've tried using Radio Mobile but I'll be darned if I can't get that thing to work even with the step by step instructions. I've been finding myself just plotting elevations all the way along the link in Google Earth. Where are you getting hung up? Radio Mobile is probably the best free tool you're gonna get, and once set up, works pretty well. (The trickiest part probably is getting the terrain data you need, but you only have to do that once.) 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 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 When the stars threw down their spears, and water'd heaven with their tears, Did He smile, His work to see? Did He who made the Lamb make thee? From William Blake's Tiger!, Tiger! 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] Link Planning Software
Marlon used Brian Webster. Chuck On Sep 23, 2009, at 10:29 PM, Scott Reed wrote: Not to be repetitive, but you are describing RadioMobile John the RM Yahoo group and see if you can't get it to do just what you are looking for. Seems to me Marlon Schaffer found someone to help him learn it a few months ago. I don't remember who. I can help some if you want to ask questions off-list. Robert West wrote: I was holding this chunk of Organite and praying for such a thing and now here it is. Spooky. Get ready for the list, Shaddi. For one, this browser based software should not depend on the internet, yes? The term browser speaks internet to me. If I'm out in the field trying to figure out a link I obviously don't have internet there. Not that I see myself out in the middle of a corn field with my laptop trying to figure it out but hey, who knows. The basics of course is terrain and elevation but I'd like to see how a link over water is taken into account rolled into the thing. I also have to guess at trees. If I'm only able to get 70 feet or so up and the trees around here are also around 70 feet, it might say yes but the trees would say no. Could it possibly have a variable where you could set an average height for stands of trees? Where I am at, Southern Ohio, all the patches of trees are pretty much a single average height. If the software could distinguish a large green patch as trees and you tell the software that the average height is whatever, it could possibly add that height to the land elevation. Would be good to have a database of various antennas and radios to pull from as well. Hey! IDEA! A new game, Wireless Internet Tycoon!!! What do ya think? I've kinda ran off the rails here, sorry. You want a wish list? Grab some paper, pal. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Shaddi Hasan Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 5:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software Howdy WISPA! Just joined today but wanted to chime in -- some students here at UNC Chapel Hill are working on a browser-based link planning tool as a semester project. It will be released as open-source at the end of the semester, so we'd like it to be useful not only for our projects but for the community at large. While primarily geared towards community wireless projects, it'd be great if it could be useful for the professional WISP community. So, if you have any feedback on what features you'd like to see in such a tool, lessons you all have learned that should be incorporated into its design, or the concept generally, please contact me. To the OP, check back in December and we might have something to offer you! Shaddi On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: What are you folks using to verify the viability of a link before you plan the build? I've tried using Radio Mobile but I'll be darned if I can't get that thing to work even with the step by step instructions. I've been finding myself just plotting elevations all the way along the link in Google Earth. Sucks. Anyone using a good software app that will plot the links and give me the easy thumbs up or thumbs down? Sorry to be a pain with all these questions. It's been too hectic and I just don't have the time to sit for 2 days evaluating crap software. I'd rather be told what's good by real users. Thanks. Organite. It's not just for breakfast anymore. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ No virus found in this incoming message.
Re: [WISPA] license for amplifier?
The only way to have all electronics at the bottom is to use waveguide. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Paolo Di Francesco paolo.difrance...@teleinform.com Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 7:56 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] license for amplifier? you decide the level of service, personally I think the amplifier is the worst choice, I would prefer to use the devices on the tower (and yes we have devices on tower with ice). But you asked for the electronic on the bottom (i.e. all passive) then you have to choose what is the best trade off for you. Having the electronics on the bottom is a very good thing, anybody can go there to see what's wrong and it's easier to work during storms or bad weather. But it has a high cost. Personally I would suggest, instead of having the things on the bottom, to install twin devices on the tower. In case one goes down you have the other one. This is easy to implement and very quick BUT it is not what you asked in your last email. We do that and we find it a decent trade off. Bye. For a 1/2 dozen subs? I should probably put in a backup generator too! On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Paolo Di Francesco paolo.difrance...@teleinform.com wrote: then try to go with guide not with coaxial cable. In this way on the tower you will have all-passive hardware. just my 2cents Ya thats not bad. The other problem with this tower is that because of the terrain, you cant get a bucket near it for most of the year. So, I was just trying to keep the electonics at the bottom. The other end is only about 2 miles so I bet I can squeeze enough signal with XR5 and no amp. Thanks to all! -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Dennis Burgess dmburg...@linktechs.net wrote: ?? Lets see a 433 with two radio cards would be a few hundred for a complete repeater :) --- Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer WISPA Board Member - wispa.org Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services WISPA Vendor Member Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training Author of Learn RouterOS -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:09 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] license for amplifier? Gotcha. Unfortunately, this tower only has a half dozen subs. The cost of those options prohibit use in this scenario. Thanks again. -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: FCC friendly backhaul options as was suggested. The alternative in case you're unable to use an amplifier. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:02 PM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: Josh, Thanks for the link to a beautiful chart but what does it have to do with an amp? -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Microwave Backhaul Comparison Chart - WISPTech http://www.wisptech.com/index.php/Microwave_Backhaul_Comparison_Chart Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM, jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com wrote: Big thank you to L-com. Use a POE based backhaul product to avoid cable loss. The amp will also hurt your noise floor by amplifying interference/noise as well. If you are concerened about unreliability of having electronics atop the tower with regard to a POE radio solution, an amp is electronics atop the tower, so that argument doesn't hold water. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:59:11AM -0400, RickG wrote: I am planning to install a 5Ghz backhaul from my main tower to a remote. It will have the antenna on the top, 150' of LMR-400 and the radio at the bottom. To make up for the loss, I ordered a 500mw amp from L-Com. Unfortunately, they cancelled the order saying I need a HAM license to purchase it. I thought unlicensed freqs dont require a license? -RickG -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Teleinform S.p.A. Sede Legale: Via Francesco Paolo Di Blasi 1, 90144 Palermo Unita' Operativa: Via Regione Siciliana 49, 90046 Monreale (Palermo) Tel: +39-091-6408576, +39-091-6404501 Fax: +39-091-6406200 http://www.wikitel.it http://www.teleinform.com
Re: [WISPA] NanoStation 2.4 b/g
http://www.roc-noc.com/product.php?productid=134cat=0page=1 http://www.roc-noc.com/product.php?productid=181cat=0page=1 Tell Tom I sent you. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Matt lm7...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 9:30 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] NanoStation 2.4 b/g Does anyone know where I can get a couple NS2 units? Seems no one has stock. Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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] Link Planning Software
Actually, that was me. Jerry -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Bartosch Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:14 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software Marlon used Brian Webster. Chuck On Sep 23, 2009, at 10:29 PM, Scott Reed wrote: Not to be repetitive, but you are describing RadioMobile John the RM Yahoo group and see if you can't get it to do just what you are looking for. Seems to me Marlon Schaffer found someone to help him learn it a few months ago. I don't remember who. I can help some if you want to ask questions off-list. Robert West wrote: I was holding this chunk of Organite and praying for such a thing and now here it is. Spooky. Get ready for the list, Shaddi. For one, this browser based software should not depend on the internet, yes? The term browser speaks internet to me. If I'm out in the field trying to figure out a link I obviously don't have internet there. Not that I see myself out in the middle of a corn field with my laptop trying to figure it out but hey, who knows. The basics of course is terrain and elevation but I'd like to see how a link over water is taken into account rolled into the thing. I also have to guess at trees. If I'm only able to get 70 feet or so up and the trees around here are also around 70 feet, it might say yes but the trees would say no. Could it possibly have a variable where you could set an average height for stands of trees? Where I am at, Southern Ohio, all the patches of trees are pretty much a single average height. If the software could distinguish a large green patch as trees and you tell the software that the average height is whatever, it could possibly add that height to the land elevation. Would be good to have a database of various antennas and radios to pull from as well. Hey! IDEA! A new game, Wireless Internet Tycoon!!! What do ya think? I've kinda ran off the rails here, sorry. You want a wish list? Grab some paper, pal. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Shaddi Hasan Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 5:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software Howdy WISPA! Just joined today but wanted to chime in -- some students here at UNC Chapel Hill are working on a browser-based link planning tool as a semester project. It will be released as open-source at the end of the semester, so we'd like it to be useful not only for our projects but for the community at large. While primarily geared towards community wireless projects, it'd be great if it could be useful for the professional WISP community. So, if you have any feedback on what features you'd like to see in such a tool, lessons you all have learned that should be incorporated into its design, or the concept generally, please contact me. To the OP, check back in December and we might have something to offer you! Shaddi On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: What are you folks using to verify the viability of a link before you plan the build? I've tried using Radio Mobile but I'll be darned if I can't get that thing to work even with the step by step instructions. I've been finding myself just plotting elevations all the way along the link in Google Earth. Sucks. Anyone using a good software app that will plot the links and give me the easy thumbs up or thumbs down? Sorry to be a pain with all these questions. It's been too hectic and I just don't have the time to sit for 2 days evaluating crap software. I'd rather be told what's good by real users. Thanks. Organite. It's not just for breakfast anymore. 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
Re: [WISPA] 2.4 Sector Recommendations
Agreed. I used some Pac sectors and thought so so of this whole WISP thing. I put up a couple MTI sectors and wow... - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.com Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 9:34 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2.4 Sector Recommendations Never use cheap antennas! They cost far too much money in the long run. I like the maxrad units. Not cheap but not really expensive either. marlon - Original Message - From: Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 7:35 AM Subject: [WISPA] 2.4 Sector Recommendations Looking for recommendations for 2.4ghz sector antennas, cheap of course. Thanks! Robert West 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] license for amplifier?
I appreciate the input. Thanks! On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Paolo Di Francesco paolo.difrance...@teleinform.com wrote: you decide the level of service, personally I think the amplifier is the worst choice, I would prefer to use the devices on the tower (and yes we have devices on tower with ice). But you asked for the electronic on the bottom (i.e. all passive) then you have to choose what is the best trade off for you. Having the electronics on the bottom is a very good thing, anybody can go there to see what's wrong and it's easier to work during storms or bad weather. But it has a high cost. Personally I would suggest, instead of having the things on the bottom, to install twin devices on the tower. In case one goes down you have the other one. This is easy to implement and very quick BUT it is not what you asked in your last email. We do that and we find it a decent trade off. Bye. For a 1/2 dozen subs? I should probably put in a backup generator too! On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Paolo Di Francesco paolo.difrance...@teleinform.com wrote: then try to go with guide not with coaxial cable. In this way on the tower you will have all-passive hardware. just my 2cents Ya thats not bad. The other problem with this tower is that because of the terrain, you cant get a bucket near it for most of the year. So, I was just trying to keep the electonics at the bottom. The other end is only about 2 miles so I bet I can squeeze enough signal with XR5 and no amp. Thanks to all! -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Dennis Burgess dmburg...@linktechs.net wrote: ?? Lets see a 433 with two radio cards would be a few hundred for a complete repeater :) --- Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer WISPA Board Member - wispa.org Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services WISPA Vendor Member Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training Author of Learn RouterOS -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:09 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] license for amplifier? Gotcha. Unfortunately, this tower only has a half dozen subs. The cost of those options prohibit use in this scenario. Thanks again. -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: FCC friendly backhaul options as was suggested. The alternative in case you're unable to use an amplifier. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:02 PM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: Josh, Thanks for the link to a beautiful chart but what does it have to do with an amp? -RickG On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Microwave Backhaul Comparison Chart - WISPTech http://www.wisptech.com/index.php/Microwave_Backhaul_Comparison_Chart Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM, jp j...@saucer.midcoast.com wrote: Big thank you to L-com. Use a POE based backhaul product to avoid cable loss. The amp will also hurt your noise floor by amplifying interference/noise as well. If you are concerened about unreliability of having electronics atop the tower with regard to a POE radio solution, an amp is electronics atop the tower, so that argument doesn't hold water. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:59:11AM -0400, RickG wrote: I am planning to install a 5Ghz backhaul from my main tower to a remote. It will have the antenna on the top, 150' of LMR-400 and the radio at the bottom. To make up for the loss, I ordered a 500mw amp from L-Com. Unfortunately, they cancelled the order saying I need a HAM license to purchase it. I thought unlicensed freqs dont require a license? -RickG -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Teleinform S.p.A. Sede Legale: Via Francesco Paolo Di Blasi 1, 90144 Palermo Unita' Operativa: Via Regione Siciliana 49, 90046 Monreale (Palermo) Tel: +39-091-6408576, +39-091-6404501 Fax: +39-091-6406200 http://www.wikitel.it http://www.teleinform.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:
Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software
Ah, my apologies! I guess I should have checked that then blush. Chuck On Sep 24, 2009, at 11:31 AM, Jerry Richardson wrote: Actually, that was me. Jerry -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Bartosch Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:14 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software Marlon used Brian Webster. Chuck On Sep 23, 2009, at 10:29 PM, Scott Reed wrote: Not to be repetitive, but you are describing RadioMobile John the RM Yahoo group and see if you can't get it to do just what you are looking for. Seems to me Marlon Schaffer found someone to help him learn it a few months ago. I don't remember who. I can help some if you want to ask questions off-list. Robert West wrote: I was holding this chunk of Organite and praying for such a thing and now here it is. Spooky. Get ready for the list, Shaddi. For one, this browser based software should not depend on the internet, yes? The term browser speaks internet to me. If I'm out in the field trying to figure out a link I obviously don't have internet there. Not that I see myself out in the middle of a corn field with my laptop trying to figure it out but hey, who knows. The basics of course is terrain and elevation but I'd like to see how a link over water is taken into account rolled into the thing. I also have to guess at trees. If I'm only able to get 70 feet or so up and the trees around here are also around 70 feet, it might say yes but the trees would say no. Could it possibly have a variable where you could set an average height for stands of trees? Where I am at, Southern Ohio, all the patches of trees are pretty much a single average height. If the software could distinguish a large green patch as trees and you tell the software that the average height is whatever, it could possibly add that height to the land elevation. Would be good to have a database of various antennas and radios to pull from as well. Hey! IDEA! A new game, Wireless Internet Tycoon!!! What do ya think? I've kinda ran off the rails here, sorry. You want a wish list? Grab some paper, pal. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Shaddi Hasan Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 5:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software Howdy WISPA! Just joined today but wanted to chime in -- some students here at UNC Chapel Hill are working on a browser-based link planning tool as a semester project. It will be released as open-source at the end of the semester, so we'd like it to be useful not only for our projects but for the community at large. While primarily geared towards community wireless projects, it'd be great if it could be useful for the professional WISP community. So, if you have any feedback on what features you'd like to see in such a tool, lessons you all have learned that should be incorporated into its design, or the concept generally, please contact me. To the OP, check back in December and we might have something to offer you! Shaddi On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: What are you folks using to verify the viability of a link before you plan the build? I've tried using Radio Mobile but I'll be darned if I can't get that thing to work even with the step by step instructions. I've been finding myself just plotting elevations all the way along the link in Google Earth. Sucks. Anyone using a good software app that will plot the links and give me the easy thumbs up or thumbs down? Sorry to be a pain with all these questions. It's been too hectic and I just don't have the time to sit for 2 days evaluating crap software. I'd rather be told what's good by real users. Thanks. Organite. It's not just for breakfast anymore. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/
Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software
No worries :-) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Bartosch Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:38 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software Ah, my apologies! I guess I should have checked that then blush. Chuck On Sep 24, 2009, at 11:31 AM, Jerry Richardson wrote: Actually, that was me. Jerry -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Bartosch Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:14 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software Marlon used Brian Webster. Chuck On Sep 23, 2009, at 10:29 PM, Scott Reed wrote: Not to be repetitive, but you are describing RadioMobile John the RM Yahoo group and see if you can't get it to do just what you are looking for. Seems to me Marlon Schaffer found someone to help him learn it a few months ago. I don't remember who. I can help some if you want to ask questions off-list. Robert West wrote: I was holding this chunk of Organite and praying for such a thing and now here it is. Spooky. Get ready for the list, Shaddi. For one, this browser based software should not depend on the internet, yes? The term browser speaks internet to me. If I'm out in the field trying to figure out a link I obviously don't have internet there. Not that I see myself out in the middle of a corn field with my laptop trying to figure it out but hey, who knows. The basics of course is terrain and elevation but I'd like to see how a link over water is taken into account rolled into the thing. I also have to guess at trees. If I'm only able to get 70 feet or so up and the trees around here are also around 70 feet, it might say yes but the trees would say no. Could it possibly have a variable where you could set an average height for stands of trees? Where I am at, Southern Ohio, all the patches of trees are pretty much a single average height. If the software could distinguish a large green patch as trees and you tell the software that the average height is whatever, it could possibly add that height to the land elevation. Would be good to have a database of various antennas and radios to pull from as well. Hey! IDEA! A new game, Wireless Internet Tycoon!!! What do ya think? I've kinda ran off the rails here, sorry. You want a wish list? Grab some paper, pal. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Shaddi Hasan Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 5:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software Howdy WISPA! Just joined today but wanted to chime in -- some students here at UNC Chapel Hill are working on a browser-based link planning tool as a semester project. It will be released as open-source at the end of the semester, so we'd like it to be useful not only for our projects but for the community at large. While primarily geared towards community wireless projects, it'd be great if it could be useful for the professional WISP community. So, if you have any feedback on what features you'd like to see in such a tool, lessons you all have learned that should be incorporated into its design, or the concept generally, please contact me. To the OP, check back in December and we might have something to offer you! Shaddi On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: What are you folks using to verify the viability of a link before you plan the build? I've tried using Radio Mobile but I'll be darned if I can't get that thing to work even with the step by step instructions. I've been finding myself just plotting elevations all the way along the link in Google Earth. Sucks. Anyone using a good software app that will plot the links and give me the easy thumbs up or thumbs down? Sorry to be a pain with all these questions. It's been too hectic and I just don't have the time to sit for 2 days evaluating crap software. I'd rather be told what's good by real users. Thanks. Organite. It's not just for breakfast anymore. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software
I've done the same for years. The only thing I use RM for is the backhaul links. -RickG On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Blair Davis the...@wmwisp.net wrote: It may sound stupid, but I use Delorm Topo 4 Plot your endpoints, draw a line and look at the trerrian profile. Add the antenna heights and you should have a real good idea if it will work or not. I played with Radio Mobile for a long time. It works, but Delorm is faster and eaiser for PtP links. Robert West wrote: What are you folks using to verify the viability of a link before you plan the build? I've tried using Radio Mobile but I'll be darned if I can't get that thing to work even with the step by step instructions. I've been finding myself just plotting elevations all the way along the link in Google Earth. Sucks. Anyone using a good software app that will plot the links and give me the easy thumbs up or thumbs down? Sorry to be a pain with all these questions. It's been too hectic and I just don't have the time to sit for 2 days evaluating crap software. I'd rather be told what's good by real users. Thanks. Organite. It's not just for breakfast anymore. 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] Link Planning Software
I've seen that too. It looked the same as Delorme. On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Ryan Spott rsp...@cspott.com wrote: I use National Geographic's Topo! software. It works quite well. Just toss the contents of the CD-ROM into the same folder as the software and you don't need the CD-ROM at all. ryan On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Blair Davis the...@wmwisp.net wrote: It may sound stupid, but I use Delorm Topo 4 Plot your endpoints, draw a line and look at the trerrian profile. Add the antenna heights and you should have a real good idea if it will work or not. I played with Radio Mobile for a long time. It works, but Delorm is faster and eaiser for PtP links. Robert West wrote: What are you folks using to verify the viability of a link before you plan the build? I've tried using Radio Mobile but I'll be darned if I can't get that thing to work even with the step by step instructions. I've been finding myself just plotting elevations all the way along the link in Google Earth. Sucks. Anyone using a good software app that will plot the links and give me the easy thumbs up or thumbs down? Sorry to be a pain with all these questions. It's been too hectic and I just don't have the time to sit for 2 days evaluating crap software. I'd rather be told what's good by real users. Thanks. Organite. It's not just for breakfast anymore. 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] Link Planning Software
For a quick down and dirty is it worth looking into Ligo's new online tool is pretty slick. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software I've done the same for years. The only thing I use RM for is the backhaul links. -RickG On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Blair Davis the...@wmwisp.net wrote: It may sound stupid, but I use Delorm Topo 4 Plot your endpoints, draw a line and look at the trerrian profile. Add the antenna heights and you should have a real good idea if it will work or not. I played with Radio Mobile for a long time. It works, but Delorm is faster and eaiser for PtP links. Robert West wrote: What are you folks using to verify the viability of a link before you plan the build? I've tried using Radio Mobile but I'll be darned if I can't get that thing to work even with the step by step instructions. I've been finding myself just plotting elevations all the way along the link in Google Earth. Sucks. Anyone using a good software app that will plot the links and give me the easy thumbs up or thumbs down? Sorry to be a pain with all these questions. It's been too hectic and I just don't have the time to sit for 2 days evaluating crap software. I'd rather be told what's good by real users. Thanks. Organite. It's not just for breakfast anymore. 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] Link Planning Software
Truth be told, Brian would be a better choice if he has the time. He's spend far more time with it that I have. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Richardson Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:41 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software No worries :-) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Bartosch Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:38 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software Ah, my apologies! I guess I should have checked that then blush. Chuck On Sep 24, 2009, at 11:31 AM, Jerry Richardson wrote: Actually, that was me. Jerry -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Bartosch Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:14 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software Marlon used Brian Webster. Chuck On Sep 23, 2009, at 10:29 PM, Scott Reed wrote: Not to be repetitive, but you are describing RadioMobile John the RM Yahoo group and see if you can't get it to do just what you are looking for. Seems to me Marlon Schaffer found someone to help him learn it a few months ago. I don't remember who. I can help some if you want to ask questions off-list. Robert West wrote: I was holding this chunk of Organite and praying for such a thing and now here it is. Spooky. Get ready for the list, Shaddi. For one, this browser based software should not depend on the internet, yes? The term browser speaks internet to me. If I'm out in the field trying to figure out a link I obviously don't have internet there. Not that I see myself out in the middle of a corn field with my laptop trying to figure it out but hey, who knows. The basics of course is terrain and elevation but I'd like to see how a link over water is taken into account rolled into the thing. I also have to guess at trees. If I'm only able to get 70 feet or so up and the trees around here are also around 70 feet, it might say yes but the trees would say no. Could it possibly have a variable where you could set an average height for stands of trees? Where I am at, Southern Ohio, all the patches of trees are pretty much a single average height. If the software could distinguish a large green patch as trees and you tell the software that the average height is whatever, it could possibly add that height to the land elevation. Would be good to have a database of various antennas and radios to pull from as well. Hey! IDEA! A new game, Wireless Internet Tycoon!!! What do ya think? I've kinda ran off the rails here, sorry. You want a wish list? Grab some paper, pal. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Shaddi Hasan Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 5:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software Howdy WISPA! Just joined today but wanted to chime in -- some students here at UNC Chapel Hill are working on a browser-based link planning tool as a semester project. It will be released as open-source at the end of the semester, so we'd like it to be useful not only for our projects but for the community at large. While primarily geared towards community wireless projects, it'd be great if it could be useful for the professional WISP community. So, if you have any feedback on what features you'd like to see in such a tool, lessons you all have learned that should be incorporated into its design, or the concept generally, please contact me. To the OP, check back in December and we might have something to offer you! Shaddi On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: What are you folks using to verify the viability of a link before you plan the build? I've tried using Radio Mobile but I'll be darned if I can't get that thing to work even with the step by step instructions. I've been finding myself just plotting elevations all the way along the link in Google Earth. Sucks. Anyone using a good software app that will plot the links and give me the easy thumbs up or thumbs down? Sorry to be a pain with all these questions. It's been too hectic and I just don't have the time to sit for 2 days evaluating crap software. I'd rather be told what's good by real users. Thanks. Organite. It's not just for breakfast anymore. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] Mikrotik Weirdness!?
Ok, Im going bonkers. We are getting ping drops from our Mikrotik devices to the other. Our main router is PC based with one of those 4 port RB cards in it. Starting the other day out of the blue the net started acting funky and we were getting large pauses. So I started pinging. Get ping loss from the main router to everything. average pps going through the router 585 and transfers around 4m at the moment. We switched out the pc and even used an integrated ethernet port on the new pc to check connectivity to the other devices via means other than the RB 4 port ethernet card to make sure that wasnt going bad. But no improvement STILL getting pings loss. Switched cables. STILL. Latest OS. Now here is the wierd part I do not get. We have our backhaul radio connected directly to the onboard ethernet port on the pc router. Running a ping from the pc router to the radio port in the ping specifying to use not ANY but the backhaul port as we labeled it will get us around 10-15% packet loss. While at the same time running a ping from the bachaul radio to the router gets 0% packet loss using the same method. How is this possible? PC PORT (ethernet cable) RADIO ETH = Lost packets Radio ETH (ethernet cable) PC PORT = 0 Lost packets ? 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] Mikrotik Weirdness!?
Ok, Im going bonkers. We are getting ping drops from our Mikrotik devices to the other. Our main router is PC based with one of those 4 port RB cards in it. Starting the other day out of the blue the net started acting funky and we were getting large pauses. So I started pinging. Get ping loss from the main router to everything. average pps going through the router 585 and transfers around 4m at the moment. We switched out the pc and even used an integrated ethernet port on the new pc to check connectivity to the other devices via means other than the RB 4 port ethernet card to make sure that wasnt going bad. But no improvement STILL getting pings loss. Switched cables. STILL. Latest OS. Now here is the wierd part I do not get. We have our backhaul radio connected directly to the onboard ethernet port on the pc router. Running a ping from the pc router to the radio port in the ping specifying to use not ANY but the backhaul port as we labeled it will get us around 10-15% packet loss. While at the same time running a ping from the bachaul radio to the router gets 0% packet loss using the same method. How is this possible? PC PORT (ethernet cable) RADIO ETH = Lost packets Radio ETH (ethernet cable) PC PORT = 0 Lost packets ? 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] Mikrotik Weirdness!?
Try replace the poe injector. I seen similar behavior when the poe unit gotten damaged but not enough to stop traffic all together especially when it's not just a simple straight passive injector like our poe-in-w. /Eje Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: sa...@michianawireless.com Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:50:45 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Mikrotik Weirdness!? Ok, Im going bonkers. We are getting ping drops from our Mikrotik devices to the other. Our main router is PC based with one of those 4 port RB cards in it. Starting the other day out of the blue the net started acting funky and we were getting large pauses. So I started pinging. Get ping loss from the main router to everything. average pps going through the router 585 and transfers around 4m at the moment. We switched out the pc and even used an integrated ethernet port on the new pc to check connectivity to the other devices via means other than the RB 4 port ethernet card to make sure that wasnt going bad. But no improvement STILL getting pings loss. Switched cables. STILL. Latest OS. Now here is the wierd part I do not get. We have our backhaul radio connected directly to the onboard ethernet port on the pc router. Running a ping from the pc router to the radio port in the ping specifying to use not ANY but the backhaul port as we labeled it will get us around 10-15% packet loss. While at the same time running a ping from the bachaul radio to the router gets 0% packet loss using the same method. How is this possible? PC PORT (ethernet cable) RADIO ETH = Lost packets Radio ETH (ethernet cable) PC PORT = 0 Lost packets ? 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] Mikrotik Weirdness!?
You've looked into CPU load and firewall stuff, right? I too would try a new POE - only $20 to help find out. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:53 PM, e...@wisp-router.com wrote: Try replace the poe injector. I seen similar behavior when the poe unit gotten damaged but not enough to stop traffic all together especially when it's not just a simple straight passive injector like our poe-in-w. /Eje Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: sa...@michianawireless.com Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:50:45 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Mikrotik Weirdness!? Ok, Im going bonkers. We are getting ping drops from our Mikrotik devices to the other. Our main router is PC based with one of those 4 port RB cards in it. Starting the other day out of the blue the net started acting funky and we were getting large pauses. So I started pinging. Get ping loss from the main router to everything. average pps going through the router 585 and transfers around 4m at the moment. We switched out the pc and even used an integrated ethernet port on the new pc to check connectivity to the other devices via means other than the RB 4 port ethernet card to make sure that wasnt going bad. But no improvement STILL getting pings loss. Switched cables. STILL. Latest OS. Now here is the wierd part I do not get. We have our backhaul radio connected directly to the onboard ethernet port on the pc router. Running a ping from the pc router to the radio port in the ping specifying to use not ANY but the backhaul port as we labeled it will get us around 10-15% packet loss. While at the same time running a ping from the bachaul radio to the router gets 0% packet loss using the same method. How is this possible? PC PORT (ethernet cable) RADIO ETH = Lost packets Radio ETH (ethernet cable) PC PORT = 0 Lost packets ? 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] Mikrotik Weirdness!?
Plug a laptop or some other device into the same port, and ping from the PC router to that device. Same results? Nick Olsen Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x106 From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 1:58 PM To: e...@wisp-router.com e...@wisp-router.com, WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Weirdness!? You've looked into CPU load and firewall stuff, right? I too would try a new POE - only $20 to help find out. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:53 PM, wrote: Try replace the poe injector. I seen similar behavior when the poe unit gotten damaged but not enough to stop traffic all together especially when it's not just a simple straight passive injector like our poe-in-w. /Eje Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: sa...@michianawireless.com Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:50:45 To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Mikrotik Weirdness!? Ok, Im going bonkers. We are getting ping drops from our Mikrotik devices to the other. Our main router is PC based with one of those 4 port RB cards in it. Starting the other day out of the blue the net started acting funky and we were getting large pauses. So I started pinging. Get ping loss from the main router to everything. average pps going through the router 585 and transfers around 4m at the moment. We switched out the pc and even used an integrated ethernet port on the new pc to check connectivity to the other devices via means other than the RB 4 port ethernet card to make sure that wasnt going bad. But no improvement STILL getting pings loss. Switched cables. STILL. Latest OS. Now here is the wierd part I do not get. We have our backhaul radio connected directly to the onboard ethernet port on the pc router. Running a ping from the pc router to the radio port in the ping specifying to use not ANY but the backhaul port as we labeled it will get us around 10-15% packet loss. While at the same time running a ping from the bachaul radio to the router gets 0% packet loss using the same method. How is this possible? PC PORT (ethernet cable) RADIO ETH = Lost packets Radio ETH (ethernet cable) PC PORT = 0 Lost packets ? 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] Micropops
I suppose that is a good term, I would like to be able to redistribute service to small pockets of houses, 6-12, without putting up a full blown AP/BH setup. Any one else doing this? I normally use 5.8 for BH typically and 2.4 for clients, I was thinking of maybe using a PS2 to receive/BH and connect it to an NS2 with small omni to redistribute. Both would be in a bridge and allow the clients connected to connect to the main AP for PPPoE authentication. Is this a reasonable or ridiculous solution? Any other solutions others are using that might be better? I know I could use MT but that would add complexity to the mix I don't need. Mark 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] Micropops
Lots of people are doing that with NS2s and MTs. I think across the board NS2 as the CPE if I'm not mistaken - maybe a few Tranzeos out there. Up to you to decide which you'd rather use. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Mark McElvy mmce...@accubak.com wrote: I suppose that is a good term, I would like to be able to redistribute service to small pockets of houses, 6-12, without putting up a full blown AP/BH setup. Any one else doing this? I normally use 5.8 for BH typically and 2.4 for clients, I was thinking of maybe using a PS2 to receive/BH and connect it to an NS2 with small omni to redistribute. Both would be in a bridge and allow the clients connected to connect to the main AP for PPPoE authentication. Is this a reasonable or ridiculous solution? Any other solutions others are using that might be better? I know I could use MT but that would add complexity to the mix I don't need. Mark 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] Micropops
I understand if you think MT is complex, but it takes me 10 minutes to setup an RB433 with a 5GHz and a 2GHz card to do what you want. Then I can manage my micropops exactly like my pops. And if it grows, the right stuff is there. And I just like the control and view I get with RouterOS. Mark McElvy wrote: I suppose that is a good term, I would like to be able to redistribute service to small pockets of houses, 6-12, without putting up a full blown AP/BH setup. Any one else doing this? I normally use 5.8 for BH typically and 2.4 for clients, I was thinking of maybe using a PS2 to receive/BH and connect it to an NS2 with small omni to redistribute. Both would be in a bridge and allow the clients connected to connect to the main AP for PPPoE authentication. Is this a reasonable or ridiculous solution? Any other solutions others are using that might be better? I know I could use MT but that would add complexity to the mix I don't need. Mark 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: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.112/2392 - Release Date: 09/24/09 05:52:00 -- 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] Micropops
I'm doing just that using Ubiquiti Pico2HP units as the AP and bullets for the backhaul (5GHz whenever possible). -RickG On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Mark McElvy mmce...@accubak.com wrote: I suppose that is a good term, I would like to be able to redistribute service to small pockets of houses, 6-12, without putting up a full blown AP/BH setup. Any one else doing this? I normally use 5.8 for BH typically and 2.4 for clients, I was thinking of maybe using a PS2 to receive/BH and connect it to an NS2 with small omni to redistribute. Both would be in a bridge and allow the clients connected to connect to the main AP for PPPoE authentication. Is this a reasonable or ridiculous solution? Any other solutions others are using that might be better? I know I could use MT but that would add complexity to the mix I don't need. Mark 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] Link Planning Software
game show player I'll take time consuming projects for $500 Alex well know game show host Daily Double!! On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Charles Wu imceaex-_o=cti_ou=exchange+20administrative+20group+20+28fydibohf23spdlt+29_cn=recipients_cn=char...@converge-tech.com wrote: Incorporate all the formulas on this paper for us =) -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Shaddi Hasan Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 4:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Link Planning Software Howdy WISPA! Just joined today but wanted to chime in -- some students here at UNC Chapel Hill are working on a browser-based link planning tool as a semester project. It will be released as open-source at the end of the semester, so we'd like it to be useful not only for our projects but for the community at large. While primarily geared towards community wireless projects, it'd be great if it could be useful for the professional WISP community. So, if you have any feedback on what features you'd like to see in such a tool, lessons you all have learned that should be incorporated into its design, or the concept generally, please contact me. To the OP, check back in December and we might have something to offer you! Shaddi On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.comwrote: What are you folks using to verify the viability of a link before you plan the build? I've tried using Radio Mobile but I'll be darned if I can't get that thing to work even with the step by step instructions. I've been finding myself just plotting elevations all the way along the link in Google Earth. Sucks. Anyone using a good software app that will plot the links and give me the easy thumbs up or thumbs down? Sorry to be a pain with all these questions. It's been too hectic and I just don't have the time to sit for 2 days evaluating crap software. I'd rather be told what's good by real users. Thanks. Organite. It's not just for breakfast anymore. 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] Odd canopy sync issue
As some of you know we replaced a Canopy AP. The old one was GPS synced by a CMM but what I didn't know when we replaced the CMM sync port was gone (we share tower with another Canopy operator that gave us sync since we only had one unit up there and he didn't need the port). So instead of getting with the other WISP to find out how and when we could get sync again we installed a syncpipe parasitic (we didn't have any at the point ourselves when the other WISP told we could plug in to his CMM). Canopy unit gets GPS sync nicely and we see 10 out of 12 sats, coordinates looks right etc. But when we turn on the AP to use gps sync from timing port only 2 subs associate. If we change frequency a different 2 subs associate. If we change to another frequency yet another different set of 2 subs associate. Plus they take a good 20-30 before they associate. But no matter what I do only 2 will associate as long gps sync from timing port is set. If we set it to generate sync plop all subs come back almost immediately once the AP rebooted. We are running v9.4, on this 2.4Ghz non-advantage (all subs are also 9.4) AP (wish Moto would hurry up get us our upgrade). We are running same distance, control slots and % as the other 2 canopy operators in the area. . Any ideas to find a solution that means I do not have to climb 180ft a third day in a row appreciated.. And no do not have a second sync pipe on hand it was our spare unit we installed. The other unit we got at the same time works very nicely on a 900Mhz AP on a different tower. / Eje WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Micropops
I'd like to hear opinions on what Micropops do to your business. 1. How many customers do you look for before you install even the least expensive MPoP? 2. I've always been of the opinion that having many small MPoPs devalues my business to a prospective buyer. 3. I've always thought that having many small MPoPs is a problem for tech support (we have 700 customers and 3 techs...not everyone knows what each installation looks like or how it's connected necessarily). I think this is good discussion... Just because you CAN do it, SHOULD you do it. Depends on a few factors... 1. Do I need/want to make money any which way I can? 2. How much do I put into a MPoP (battery backup vs. power outage no access to AP if its host is on vacation) 3. Do I plan to sell my business and if I do should I stick to traditional inside-the-box installations? Mark Nash UnwiredWest 78 Centennial Loop Suite E Eugene, OR 97401 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax http://www.unwiredwest.com - Original Message - From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Micropops I'm doing just that using Ubiquiti Pico2HP units as the AP and bullets for the backhaul (5GHz whenever possible). -RickG On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Mark McElvy mmce...@accubak.com wrote: I suppose that is a good term, I would like to be able to redistribute service to small pockets of houses, 6-12, without putting up a full blown AP/BH setup. Any one else doing this? I normally use 5.8 for BH typically and 2.4 for clients, I was thinking of maybe using a PS2 to receive/BH and connect it to an NS2 with small omni to redistribute. Both would be in a bridge and allow the clients connected to connect to the main AP for PPPoE authentication. Is this a reasonable or ridiculous solution? Any other solutions others are using that might be better? I know I could use MT but that would add complexity to the mix I don't need. Mark 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] Micropops
Bottom line: profitable. I suggest using a monitoring system to map out how the network runs. This helps find out where the customer goes to get online. On 9/24/09, Mark Nash markl...@uwol.net wrote: I'd like to hear opinions on what Micropops do to your business. 1. How many customers do you look for before you install even the least expensive MPoP? 2. I've always been of the opinion that having many small MPoPs devalues my business to a prospective buyer. 3. I've always thought that having many small MPoPs is a problem for tech support (we have 700 customers and 3 techs...not everyone knows what each installation looks like or how it's connected necessarily). I think this is good discussion... Just because you CAN do it, SHOULD you do it. Depends on a few factors... 1. Do I need/want to make money any which way I can? 2. How much do I put into a MPoP (battery backup vs. power outage no access to AP if its host is on vacation) 3. Do I plan to sell my business and if I do should I stick to traditional inside-the-box installations? Mark Nash UnwiredWest 78 Centennial Loop Suite E Eugene, OR 97401 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax http://www.unwiredwest.com - Original Message - From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Micropops I'm doing just that using Ubiquiti Pico2HP units as the AP and bullets for the backhaul (5GHz whenever possible). -RickG On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Mark McElvy mmce...@accubak.com wrote: I suppose that is a good term, I would like to be able to redistribute service to small pockets of houses, 6-12, without putting up a full blown AP/BH setup. Any one else doing this? I normally use 5.8 for BH typically and 2.4 for clients, I was thinking of maybe using a PS2 to receive/BH and connect it to an NS2 with small omni to redistribute. Both would be in a bridge and allow the clients connected to connect to the main AP for PPPoE authentication. Is this a reasonable or ridiculous solution? Any other solutions others are using that might be better? I know I could use MT but that would add complexity to the mix I don't need. Mark WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle 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] Micropops
inline Mark Nash wrote: I'd like to hear opinions on what Micropops do to your business. 1. How many customers do you look for before you install even the least expensive MPoP? 1 I can not think of a single person (on my net) that does not have a laptop. They need a AP so you mighht as well leverage it (Its mine, I manage it, they have ZERO access to it) The worst someone can do to my network (with out figuring out some user/pass) is to unplug some part of it or otherwise damage hardware. 2. I've always been of the opinion that having many small MPoPs devalues my business to a prospective buyer. Why? 3. I've always thought that having many small MPoPs is a problem for tech support (we have 700 customers and 3 techs...not everyone knows what each installation looks like or how it's connected necessarily). Documentation! I have found that pictures of every install is a must. I have a place where I store everything (other then just my brain!) even tho I am still in the one man shop stages with this one. I keep every firmware, every application, reams of note pads, etc. I distill it down every so often. The one thing I am missing most )and am working on fixing that) is a GOOD network resource map setup. I think this is good discussion... Just because you CAN do it, SHOULD you do it. Depends on a few factors... 1. Do I need/want to make money any which way I can? Yes! =) OK OK, no bank robberies. 2. How much do I put into a MPoP (battery backup vs. power outage no access to AP if its host is on vacation) Thats easy. How often is power out? I have full site access (roof) and everything is there. I will be adding out door mounted UPS's as it makes sense to. For the most part, when power is out here, everyone is with out. In years the only power outage that did not take everyone out let us know there was a issue with one of the primary UPS's. APC and it had no idea the battery was bad till after the power failed. 3. Do I plan to sell my business and if I do should I stick to traditional inside-the-box installations? Right now, I do not plan to sell (no way would I get out what I have put in time wise). Would I ever sell? Sure its on the table but right now I can not demand the price I would need to move on to bigger/better projects. I expect that to change some day. inside the box oh man. I had a convo with a SBC rep once. DS3 port $2000, 700ft to cross the street $28K. Wireless? to quote That (roof access) is to far out side the box. This is 10 years ago. On a side, I play the lotto and fiddle with numbers and burn $5/mo or so in tickets. Its a hobby and it pays off often enough to fund itself. If I were to ever 'win big' I would do this for free, I simply love doing it. Yes, I am certifiable. Mark Nash UnwiredWest 78 Centennial Loop Suite E Eugene, OR 97401 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax http://www.unwiredwest.com - Original Message - From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Micropops I'm doing just that using Ubiquiti Pico2HP units as the AP and bullets for the backhaul (5GHz whenever possible). -RickG On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Mark McElvy mmce...@accubak.com wrote: I suppose that is a good term, I would like to be able to redistribute service to small pockets of houses, 6-12, without putting up a full blown AP/BH setup. Any one else doing this? I normally use 5.8 for BH typically and 2.4 for clients, I was thinking of maybe using a PS2 to receive/BH and connect it to an NS2 with small omni to redistribute. Both would be in a bridge and allow the clients connected to connect to the main AP for PPPoE authentication. Is this a reasonable or ridiculous solution? Any other solutions others are using that might be better? I know I could use MT but that would add complexity to the mix I don't need. Mark WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/
Re: [WISPA] Micropops
Most people will also say to have the enclosure outdoors (even if it's another $200 to do so) so you have access to it when the resident is gone. Get paperwork that allows you to do so. Installs should have a picture of the SU/SM/CPE, where it penetrates the wall and the POE. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:32 PM, jree...@18-30chat.net jree...@18-30chat.net wrote: inline Mark Nash wrote: I'd like to hear opinions on what Micropops do to your business. 1. How many customers do you look for before you install even the least expensive MPoP? 1 I can not think of a single person (on my net) that does not have a laptop. They need a AP so you mighht as well leverage it (Its mine, I manage it, they have ZERO access to it) The worst someone can do to my network (with out figuring out some user/pass) is to unplug some part of it or otherwise damage hardware. 2. I've always been of the opinion that having many small MPoPs devalues my business to a prospective buyer. Why? 3. I've always thought that having many small MPoPs is a problem for tech support (we have 700 customers and 3 techs...not everyone knows what each installation looks like or how it's connected necessarily). Documentation! I have found that pictures of every install is a must. I have a place where I store everything (other then just my brain!) even tho I am still in the one man shop stages with this one. I keep every firmware, every application, reams of note pads, etc. I distill it down every so often. The one thing I am missing most )and am working on fixing that) is a GOOD network resource map setup. I think this is good discussion... Just because you CAN do it, SHOULD you do it. Depends on a few factors... 1. Do I need/want to make money any which way I can? Yes! =) OK OK, no bank robberies. 2. How much do I put into a MPoP (battery backup vs. power outage no access to AP if its host is on vacation) Thats easy. How often is power out? I have full site access (roof) and everything is there. I will be adding out door mounted UPS's as it makes sense to. For the most part, when power is out here, everyone is with out. In years the only power outage that did not take everyone out let us know there was a issue with one of the primary UPS's. APC and it had no idea the battery was bad till after the power failed. 3. Do I plan to sell my business and if I do should I stick to traditional inside-the-box installations? Right now, I do not plan to sell (no way would I get out what I have put in time wise). Would I ever sell? Sure its on the table but right now I can not demand the price I would need to move on to bigger/better projects. I expect that to change some day. inside the box oh man. I had a convo with a SBC rep once. DS3 port $2000, 700ft to cross the street $28K. Wireless? to quote That (roof access) is to far out side the box. This is 10 years ago. On a side, I play the lotto and fiddle with numbers and burn $5/mo or so in tickets. Its a hobby and it pays off often enough to fund itself. If I were to ever 'win big' I would do this for free, I simply love doing it. Yes, I am certifiable. Mark Nash UnwiredWest 78 Centennial Loop Suite E Eugene, OR 97401 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax http://www.unwiredwest.com - Original Message - From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Micropops I'm doing just that using Ubiquiti Pico2HP units as the AP and bullets for the backhaul (5GHz whenever possible). -RickG On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Mark McElvy mmce...@accubak.com wrote: I suppose that is a good term, I would like to be able to redistribute service to small pockets of houses, 6-12, without putting up a full blown AP/BH setup. Any one else doing this? I normally use 5.8 for BH typically and 2.4 for clients, I was thinking of maybe using a PS2 to receive/BH and connect it to an NS2 with small omni to redistribute. Both would be in a bridge and allow the clients connected to connect to the main AP for PPPoE authentication. Is this a reasonable or ridiculous solution? Any other solutions others are using that might be better? I know I could use MT but that would add complexity to the mix I don't need. Mark WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
Re: [WISPA] Micropops
Ditto! -RickG On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:32 PM, jree...@18-30chat.net jree...@18-30chat.net wrote: inline Mark Nash wrote: I'd like to hear opinions on what Micropops do to your business. 1. How many customers do you look for before you install even the least expensive MPoP? 1 I can not think of a single person (on my net) that does not have a laptop. They need a AP so you mighht as well leverage it (Its mine, I manage it, they have ZERO access to it) The worst someone can do to my network (with out figuring out some user/pass) is to unplug some part of it or otherwise damage hardware. 2. I've always been of the opinion that having many small MPoPs devalues my business to a prospective buyer. Why? 3. I've always thought that having many small MPoPs is a problem for tech support (we have 700 customers and 3 techs...not everyone knows what each installation looks like or how it's connected necessarily). Documentation! I have found that pictures of every install is a must. I have a place where I store everything (other then just my brain!) even tho I am still in the one man shop stages with this one. I keep every firmware, every application, reams of note pads, etc. I distill it down every so often. The one thing I am missing most )and am working on fixing that) is a GOOD network resource map setup. I think this is good discussion... Just because you CAN do it, SHOULD you do it. Depends on a few factors... 1. Do I need/want to make money any which way I can? Yes! =) OK OK, no bank robberies. 2. How much do I put into a MPoP (battery backup vs. power outage no access to AP if its host is on vacation) Thats easy. How often is power out? I have full site access (roof) and everything is there. I will be adding out door mounted UPS's as it makes sense to. For the most part, when power is out here, everyone is with out. In years the only power outage that did not take everyone out let us know there was a issue with one of the primary UPS's. APC and it had no idea the battery was bad till after the power failed. 3. Do I plan to sell my business and if I do should I stick to traditional inside-the-box installations? Right now, I do not plan to sell (no way would I get out what I have put in time wise). Would I ever sell? Sure its on the table but right now I can not demand the price I would need to move on to bigger/better projects. I expect that to change some day. inside the box oh man. I had a convo with a SBC rep once. DS3 port $2000, 700ft to cross the street $28K. Wireless? to quote That (roof access) is to far out side the box. This is 10 years ago. On a side, I play the lotto and fiddle with numbers and burn $5/mo or so in tickets. Its a hobby and it pays off often enough to fund itself. If I were to ever 'win big' I would do this for free, I simply love doing it. Yes, I am certifiable. Mark Nash UnwiredWest 78 Centennial Loop Suite E Eugene, OR 97401 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax http://www.unwiredwest.com - Original Message - From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Micropops I'm doing just that using Ubiquiti Pico2HP units as the AP and bullets for the backhaul (5GHz whenever possible). -RickG On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Mark McElvy mmce...@accubak.com wrote: I suppose that is a good term, I would like to be able to redistribute service to small pockets of houses, 6-12, without putting up a full blown AP/BH setup. Any one else doing this? I normally use 5.8 for BH typically and 2.4 for clients, I was thinking of maybe using a PS2 to receive/BH and connect it to an NS2 with small omni to redistribute. Both would be in a bridge and allow the clients connected to connect to the main AP for PPPoE authentication. Is this a reasonable or ridiculous solution? Any other solutions others are using that might be better? I know I could use MT but that would add complexity to the mix I don't need. Mark 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!
Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for
One question Clint. If you go all the way back to the FCC Computer Inquiries Acts I, II, and III...do you think all the same things would be happening? What if the FCC did not get rid of the enforcement bureau that was handling this? And after that the Tauzin-Dinguall Acts in the late 90's early 2000's? Keep in mind at the time Cable had nothing to do with this. When it comes down to the $$$... The telephone companies were missing out on their own boat ... as to say( back in the days when BBS's became web sites) and VOIP was just a dream. They saw they were missing out and everything since the mid 90's and what the FCC has done has only helped the RBOC's and ILEC's. I can name numerous claims that support this. Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Clint Ricker cric...@kentnis.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:48:53 -0400 The language of point 3 is targetting heavy users, not applications that may be heavy under some, even common, circumstances. While it seems like a small detail, it is, in fact, a big distinction--why should I be blocked from using bit torrent to download a gutenberg ebook (ie legal small) because my neighbor is doing warez full throttle, 24/7/365? Genachowski specifically alluded to Comcast degrading bit torrent traffic, something that Comcast claimed to be doing for reasons of network management and blocking of illegal content. Waving the illegal content flag is, in my opinion, very short sighted: - Legal video streaming services (hulu, netflix on demand) are rising. These are worse, in a lot of ways, than the bit torrent model since it requires a sustained throughput to provide a usable customer experience. They also often use HTTP or other common protocols. - Bit Torrent itself is trending more legal; major content providers and software companies are using it for legal distribution of content while the illegal content is making its way to other networks that are more secure / private - Last, but certainly not least, content providers are VERY eager to sign up the ISPs as content cops. Once you start down that road, you may very well find yourself as an operator having given away your own safe harbor rights and having the legal obligation to police your network for bad content. In general, it's hard to not see the WISPs taking the side of major MSOs, RBOCs, and content providers as a dangerous game. It's one thing to decide to block bit torrent because it carries a large percentage of illegal content. It's another thing when you have to implement, at your own expense, url / ip filtering, install deep packet inspection hardware (VERY expensive), and other extensive, expensive, and very time consuming process or face repeated and ongoing liability every time some kid on your network wants to duck out on paying 99c for an mp3. The content providers have been pushing for this for years; if ISPs start dancing the same tune to win the right to do some occasional fiddling with some packets, it would likely shift the balance of power. Given that many of the major service providers (Comcast, Time Warner, etc...) are also major content providers meaning that the expenses of manditory content filtering carried by the service provider business are offset by potential increases in profitability for the content producing side of the house. You, on the other hand, have nothing to gain here. You thought CALEA was bad? -Clint Ricker On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com wrote: Take a look at the third and the fifth bullet points. --C Clint Ricker wrote: Where is everyone getting that you are allowed to prioritize anything? The speech details three points along the subject of prioritization. The Julius Genachowski's recent speech specifically said no prioritization--refer to section 5. - This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks (blocking / deprioritizing) - or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers' homes (prioritizing) - During periods of network congestion, for example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy users do not crowd out everyone else (block / degrade on a per-user basis, rather than per-application?) - Doesn't apply to managed services (I believe that he's referring to metro Ethernet with QOS) - open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. (As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences.) Where has any statement been made regarding
Re: [WISPA] The Net Neutrality speech we've all been waiting for
What do you mean by do I think the same things would be happening? I have no love for the FCC under the Bush administration, and I think their actions were either the result of blatant corruption or stupidity. It's hard to look at their regulatory history and not be suspicious of the motivations for such a pro-telco agenda. That said, the competition of the late 90s was largely fake in a lot of ways. One of the fundamental purposes of the Telecom Act of 1996 was to force linesharing as a transitional stage while competitive carriers built out their own networks. Very little last mile buildout by CLECs actually happened--most CLECs just rode Ma Bells lines and were basically just glorified salespeople fronting private label bell products. A lot of money was made through various forms of arbitrage plays--which, given that they sucked a lot of revenue out of the industry without adding any value, weren't good. Unfortunately, this sort of arbitrage mentality still infects a lot of the telecom market. On the other hand, the same arbitrage plays did have the benefit of making dialin PRIs very profitable, making unlimited dialup Internet access feasible and setting the general consumer expectation that Internet should not be metered in the same way as normal telephone calls. I'm not sure what you mean by cable didn't have anything to do with this. The market share, as well as the lack of regulations on the cable companies was one of the main talking points behind getting the Tauzin-Dingell act pushed through Congress. Regardless, I think your general question is would we need forced network neutrality if the provisions of the telecom act of 1996 were still in place to some degree. I think so: - As previously mentioned, no one really pursued last mile buildout except for the MSOs and ILECs. This means that any competition is going to be forced to some degree by regulations. - Eventually, IPTV / triple play would still be the logical evolution of service providers, whether they are ILECs, MSOs, or CLECs. - Once they offer voice / video services, they have every incentive to make sure that competitive services don't perform well on their network. This doesn't change if you go from 2 providers in a zip code to 5, they still have the same incentives. - If CLECs were still viable, then the regular MA trends would have lead to heavy consolidations. and there still wouldn't be that much more competition. - The basic problem that net neutrality solves is that traffic shaping has the potential to fracture the Internet. If application providers need to pay more in general to send content to the Internet, then fine. However, the overhead of requiring application providers to negotiate with each and every network provider in the world to ensure that they have a viable path to the end-consumer essentially kills any innovation from anyone other than the biggest of companies. A standard of sorts is necessary, much in the same way that power companies are regulated to ensure that their voltage is consistent all across the US. Still, I wish the past 8 years of regulatory actions had gone differently. I think business customers, specifically, really got screwed by the last 8 years of regulation: residential Internet access is generally cheap, while millions of small business are still stuck with $700 T1s as their best method for getting on the Internet. Had regulation changes not killed off CLECs and killed line sharing requirements (or, at least cast enough doubt on them to make any investment very questionable), I think CLECs, unrestrained by having a big cash cow of existing T1 customers, would have made that space a lot more interesting. -Clint Ricker On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Scottie Arnett sarn...@info-ed.comwrote: One question Clint. If you go all the way back to the FCC Computer Inquiries Acts I, II, and III...do you think all the same things would be happening? What if the FCC did not get rid of the enforcement bureau that was handling this? And after that the Tauzin-Dinguall Acts in the late 90's early 2000's? Keep in mind at the time Cable had nothing to do with this. When it comes down to the $$$... The telephone companies were missing out on their own boat ... as to say( back in the days when BBS's became web sites) and VOIP was just a dream. They saw they were missing out and everything since the mid 90's and what the FCC has done has only helped the RBOC's and ILEC's. I can name numerous claims that support this. Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Clint Ricker cric...@kentnis.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:48:53 -0400 The language of point 3 is targetting heavy users, not applications that may be heavy under some, even common, circumstances. While it seems like a small detail, it is, in fact, a big distinction--why should I be blocked from using bit torrent to
