Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (notthe failedpower companyBPL trials)
I had a pair of the TPLink AV500 that worked for a while (35Mbps or so real throughput in my house). Then I needed to reboot them every week or so. Finally they stopped working and I switched to wireless. -Hal On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Hass, Douglas A. d...@franczek.com wrote: I have had better luck with the Zyxel PLA4215. I tried the Netgear unit Jay lists below, but had a harder time connecting and worse throughput. Zyxel says that the PLA4215 is a 500 Mbps adapter, but that would be over a short run, single branch with just a master and single slave...and then only maybe. I have been generally limited to 80 or 90 Mbps per second over multiple branches and with as many as three slaves (now down to one again, as I wire more of our house). Doug -- Original message -- From: CBB - Jay Fuller Date: 12/29/2013 3:02 PM To: WISPA General List; Subject:Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (notthe failedpower companyBPL trials) This is the part / part number description from newegg. POWERLINE NETGEAR|XET1001-100NAR Douglas A. Hass Associate 312.786.6502 d...@franczek.com Franczek Radelet P.C. 300 South Wacker Drive Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60606 312.986.0300 - Main 312.986.9192 - Fax http://franczek.comhttp://www.franczek.com/ Franczek Radelet is committed to sustainability - please consider the environment before printing this email. Circular 230 Disclosure: Under requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that, unless specifically stated otherwise, any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or tax-related matter herein. For more information about Franczek Radelet P.C., please visit franczek.com. The information contained in this e-mail message or any attachment may be confidential and/or privileged, and is intended only for the use of the named recipient. If you are not the named recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message or any attachment thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. - Original Message - From: ralph mailto:ralphli...@bsrg.org To: 'WISPA General List' mailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (notthe failedpower companyBPL trials) That’s what I’m looking for, Jay. When I say “Master”, I mean the one functioning as the backhaul to my network. One master on the pole (in the case of MuniWiFi enhancement) (or in the rafters of the covered dock in a marina application) and a number of slaves on the boats or in housed, all on the same secondary. Our marinas have transformers on shore and 60-70 boat slips on the single phase secondary. I could do the whole dock with 2 masters. Of course to have a n Ethernet manageable one would be the cat’s meow. Then we could authorize the subscribers individually, like a CATV CMTS. But since our network is run as a hotspot the size of half a state, they still have to get past the captive portal anyway so that’s why Manageable is just something really nice but not required. The WiFi works pretty well in the boats, but some of these yachts have basements that the WiFi doesn’t get into or the boats are so big (120-150ft) the coverage is poor. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of CBB - Jay Fuller Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 2:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failedpower companyBPL trials) I'll look them up next week - yes - had as many as four connected. There was no master unit, it was all one big bridge, like having them all on a switch - Original Message - From: ralph mailto:ralphli...@bsrg.org To: 'WISPA General List' mailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 8:53 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failedpower companyBPL trials) Thanks Jay. Did you ever try to get more than one remote to connect to a master without doing anything special? That’s my ultimate goal. And do you remember the model unit you used? From: wireless-boun...@wispa.orgmailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of CBB - Jay Fuller Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 1:43 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failed power companyBPL trials) Ralph - pretty sure we used the netgear model units and they did not require anything
Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (notthe failedpower companyBPL trials)
Im using the monoprice units, with integrated wifi ap... so far so good.. no reboots in 8 weeks Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.commailto:g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 787.273.4143 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 7:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (notthe failedpower companyBPL trials) I had a pair of the TPLink AV500 that worked for a while (35Mbps or so real throughput in my house). Then I needed to reboot them every week or so. Finally they stopped working and I switched to wireless. -Hal On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Hass, Douglas A. d...@franczek.commailto:d...@franczek.com wrote: I have had better luck with the Zyxel PLA4215. I tried the Netgear unit Jay lists below, but had a harder time connecting and worse throughput. Zyxel says that the PLA4215 is a 500 Mbps adapter, but that would be over a short run, single branch with just a master and single slave...and then only maybe. I have been generally limited to 80 or 90 Mbps per second over multiple branches and with as many as three slaves (now down to one again, as I wire more of our house). Doug -- Original message -- From: CBB - Jay Fuller Date: 12/29/2013 3:02 PM To: WISPA General List; Subject:Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (notthe failedpower companyBPL trials) This is the part / part number description from newegg. POWERLINE NETGEAR|XET1001-100NAR Douglas A. Hass Associate 312.786.6502tel:312.786.6502 d...@franczek.commailto:d...@franczek.com Franczek Radelet P.C. 300 South Wacker Drive Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60606 312.986.0300tel:312.986.0300 - Main 312.986.9192tel:312.986.9192 - Fax http://franczek.comhttp://www.franczek.com/ Franczek Radelet is committed to sustainability - please consider the environment before printing this email. Circular 230 Disclosure: Under requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that, unless specifically stated otherwise, any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or tax-related matter herein. For more information about Franczek Radelet P.C., please visit franczek.comhttp://franczek.com. The information contained in this e-mail message or any attachment may be confidential and/or privileged, and is intended only for the use of the named recipient. If you are not the named recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message or any attachment thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. - Original Message - From: ralph mailto:ralphli...@bsrg.orgmailto:ralphli...@bsrg.org To: 'WISPA General List' mailto:wireless@wispa.orgmailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (notthe failedpower companyBPL trials) That's what I'm looking for, Jay. When I say Master, I mean the one functioning as the backhaul to my network. One master on the pole (in the case of MuniWiFi enhancement) (or in the rafters of the covered dock in a marina application) and a number of slaves on the boats or in housed, all on the same secondary. Our marinas have transformers on shore and 60-70 boat slips on the single phase secondary. I could do the whole dock with 2 masters. Of course to have a n Ethernet manageable one would be the cat's meow. Then we could authorize the subscribers individually, like a CATV CMTS. But since our network is run as a hotspot the size of half a state, they still have to get past the captive portal anyway so that's why Manageable is just something really nice but not required. The WiFi works pretty well in the boats, but some of these yachts have basements that the WiFi doesn't get into or the boats are so big (120-150ft) the coverage is poor. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.orgmailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.orgmailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of CBB - Jay Fuller Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 2:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ethernet over power lines (not the failedpower companyBPL trials) I'll look them up next week - yes - had as many as four connected. There was no master unit, it was all one big bridge, like having them all on a switch - Original Message - From: ralph mailto:ralphli...@bsrg.orgmailto:ralphli...@bsrg.org To: 'WISPA General List' mailto:wireless@wispa.orgmailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent:
Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik PPPOE with External Radius -- Routing Issue
Just my two cents, avoid proxy-arp! On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Mark Stephenson m...@countryconnections.net wrote: I think your description is correct. Thank you for mentioning proxy arp. By its name it sounds exactly right although I am not familiar with it. We will look it up and test it if that makes sense. I am also trying to get a question into the Mikrotik forums. My question there isn't even allowed to be posted yet due to admin moderating, so the WISPA list is MUCH better. If I find a solution then I will post it back here. Thanks again, Mark -- Original Message -- From: Sam Tetherow tethe...@shwisp.net To: Mark Stephenson m...@countryconnections.net; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: 12/27/2013 6:11:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik PPPOE with External Radius -- Routing Issue I don't run PPPoE, but I am guessing this is your problem. If it was straight routing I would say you need to turn proxy arp on for the MT. I don't know if that holds true for PPPoE or not. The issue is the CPEs are sending traffic to the MT, the MT is sending to it's default GW and the return traffic is coming back to the cable modem which is dumping it out the ethernet side, the MT just doesn't know that it needs to relay the traffic on since it looks like it is destine for that LAN segment instead of needing to pass through the MT to the clients. On 12/27/2013 03:27 PM, Mark Stephenson wrote: In this case, the Mikrotik has an IP in the same range as the radios but the gateway for all these IPs is external and inside a Time Warner owned business class modem. Mark -- Original Message -- From: Sam Tetherow tethe...@shwisp.net To: Mark Stephenson m...@countryconnections.net; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: 12/27/2013 4:05:02 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik PPPOE with External Radius -- Routing Issue Does the PPPOE concentrator have an IP on the same block as the clients? Is the address block for the clients routed to the PPPOE concentrator? On 12/27/2013 02:17 PM, Mark Stephenson wrote: Well, I thought that would fix it. We did have NAT running and the radio became accessible via the IP address just like we need it to. Then I tried other IPs and later I tried the same IP again and the radio can't communicate at all out of the Mikrotik. The PPPOE connection seems fine. The issue is that the radio can't browse and the IP is not visible. Any thoughts? Thanks, Mark -- Original Message -- From: Sam Tetherow tethe...@shwisp.net To: Mark Stephenson m...@countryconnections.net; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: 12/27/2013 12:34:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik PPPOE with External Radius -- Routing Issue Did you enable natting as mentioned in Step 1 on that guide (if you did, disabled it). On 12/27/2013 11:23 AM, Mark Stephenson wrote: We are setting up PPPOE using Mikrotik routers at our towers. We have an external radius and the plan is to have username/password authentication, radius assigned IPs, and PPP protocol from Ubiquiti client equipment to the Mikrotik router at each tower. We setup these parameters in the radius server to do this: radcheck table: Cleartext-Password password radreply table: Framed-IP-Address desired ip address Framed-IP-Netmask desired net mask MS-Primary-DNS-Server desired ip of the dns MS-Secondary-DNS-Server desired ip of the second dns Mikrotik-Rate-Limit rate limit like 1M/1M The Mikrotik router (currently version 5.21 RB750UP) has the PPPOE service running and radius authentication to our external radius server. We used http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Pppoe_with_external_radius as a starting point, but it assumes dynamically assigned IPs from a local pool not IPs assigned from the radius server. We set up our Ubiquiti client equipment as routed with PPPOE and entered the PPPOE username and the password. The Ubiquiti client equipment connects to a Ubiquiti access point that is bridged and then to a Mikrotik router at the tower. The tower then connects to backhaul radios to get back to our main tower and our core router. The good news is that this mostly works! The Ubiquiti client connects wirelessly to the access point and via PPPOE to the Mikrotik. It gets the IP address and the DNS set in radius. I know that because it shows in the Ubiquiti user interface and I see it in the Mikrotik logs. And the Mikrotik does the rate limiting beautifully. We can also browse the web through the connection. From a client user perspective it
Re: [WISPA] Our internet is slow!
Just something to get people talking :) Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Author of Learn RouterOS- Second Edition http://www.wlan1.com/product_p/mikrotik%20book-2.htm Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services Office: 314-735-0270 tel:314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net http://www.linktechs.net/ - Skype: linktechs skype:linktechs?call -- Create Wireless Coverage's with www.towercoverage.com http://www.towercoverage.com/ - 900Mhz - LTE - 3G - 3.65 - TV Whitespace From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Burgess Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 3:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Our internet is slow! http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/12/30/struggling-keep-pace-broa dband-service/nh3DXjVm9JAvFQuSAB77YN/story.html Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Author of Learn RouterOS- Second Edition http://www.wlan1.com/product_p/mikrotik%20book-2.htm Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services Office: 314-735-0270 tel:314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net http://www.linktechs.net/ - Skype: linktechs skype:linktechs?call -- Create Wireless Coverage's with www.towercoverage.com http://www.towercoverage.com/ - 900Mhz - LTE - 3G - 3.65 - TV Whitespace ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] Our internet is slow!
http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/12/30/struggling-keep-pace-broa dband-service/nh3DXjVm9JAvFQuSAB77YN/story.html Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Author of Learn RouterOS- Second Edition http://www.wlan1.com/product_p/mikrotik%20book-2.htm Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services Office: 314-735-0270 tel:314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net http://www.linktechs.net/ - Skype: linktechs skype:linktechs?call -- Create Wireless Coverage's with www.towercoverage.com http://www.towercoverage.com/ - 900Mhz - LTE - 3G - 3.65 - TV Whitespace ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] decoy tower
Curious is anyone has deployed a decoy tower, palm tree looking, with decent success and who is a good distributor/manufacturer. I have never seen one in person and we have a situation where we don’t really need one but would likely look a lot better than a traditional tower thanks heith___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] decoy tower
Heith, These are NOT cheap. A few things to consider... 1. Because of the branches coming off of the main mast you have increased wind loading which means beefier pole and larger/deeper foundation. 2. At wifi freqs (2.4 and 5 Ghz) there is no real concern. At licensed freqs especially 23/24 Ghz you will need branches and leaves that are RF adapted for the spectrum. Standard branches will attenuate the heck out of your signal at higher freqs. 3. They are a PITA to work on. You need a manlift or large bucket truck to get access to antennas, etc. Its almost impossible to use a crane with a suspended manbasket. Some are climbable but they still suck to work on. You should count on spending 20-30% more than you would on a standard monopole. Go back to the tower design if you can unless of course you have deep pockets -B- On 12/30/2013 6:18 PM, heith petersen wrote: Curious is anyone has deployed a decoy tower, palm tree looking, with decent success and who is a good distributor/manufacturer. I have never seen one in person and we have a situation where we don't really need one but would likely look a lot better than a traditional tower thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] decoy tower
I appreciate the info. The guy is is insistent on this structure, I am not. But he does have some money. From what I see they look cheesy, at least online. But what do you do thanks heith From: Bob Moldashel Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 6:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] decoy tower Heith, These are NOT cheap. A few things to consider... 1. Because of the branches coming off of the main mast you have increased wind loading which means beefier pole and larger/deeper foundation. 2. At wifi freqs (2.4 and 5 Ghz) there is no real concern. At licensed freqs especially 23/24 Ghz you will need branches and leaves that are RF adapted for the spectrum. Standard branches will attenuate the heck out of your signal at higher freqs. 3. They are a PITA to work on. You need a manlift or large bucket truck to get access to antennas, etc. Its almost impossible to use a crane with a suspended manbasket. Some are climbable but they still suck to work on. You should count on spending 20-30% more than you would on a standard monopole. Go back to the tower design if you can unless of course you have deep pockets -B- On 12/30/2013 6:18 PM, heith petersen wrote: Curious is anyone has deployed a decoy tower, palm tree looking, with decent success and who is a good distributor/manufacturer. I have never seen one in person and we have a situation where we don’t really need one but would likely look a lot better than a traditional tower thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
We are getting to the point in a lot of our markets that we need to offer different speed packages. Issue being some markets, being 900 or slightly sub-par infrastructure, we wouldn’t be able to promote these packages across the board. Was curious if others are offering packages to different areas that would not be possible in some? And if so, do you get any backlash from those who cannot get those packages? Is it appropriate to offer extended packages to users on one tower when another tower down the road wouldn’t be capable of these packages? Its bad but we just offer a residential rate, no matter if that customer can get 1 meg down via Canopy 900 or close to 10 meg on a UBNT SM. I have caught a little heat in an area where we fired up 900 about 4 years ago to a market that had only satellite. Then we hooked up a tower in a small town 4 miles away with UBNT M2 and news spread like wild fire. We went from 40 900 subs to about a dozen, and a pile of radios I don’t want to deploy again. Shame on me for not offering the extended packages at that time for those wanting more bandwidth. I also have the area outside my home town that Century Link offers what they claim is 12 meg service, but it never gets close. I am constantly adding more sectors in these areas, Im getting to the point where I am adding UBNT to offload Canopy, then adding more UBNT to offload the UBNT that was offloading the Canopy, it gets to be a vicious circle. I am already $20 per month more than CL, not sure if a lot of customers would stay if I were to charge them more for what they are getting now. Once again shame on me. The bosses think the prices should be the same across the board, but technically performances cannot be matched across the board, plus Im running ragged satisfying existing customers when I should be looking at new areas, and start the vicious circle all over again LOL. thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
What we have done is offer the same packages across the board. If you can't get at least the package you want we don't install you. On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:11, heith petersen wi...@mncomm.com wrote: We are getting to the point in a lot of our markets that we need to offer different speed packages. Issue being some markets, being 900 or slightly sub-par infrastructure, we wouldn’t be able to promote these packages across the board. Was curious if others are offering packages to different areas that would not be possible in some? And if so, do you get any backlash from those who cannot get those packages? Is it appropriate to offer extended packages to users on one tower when another tower down the road wouldn’t be capable of these packages? Its bad but we just offer a residential rate, no matter if that customer can get 1 meg down via Canopy 900 or close to 10 meg on a UBNT SM. I have caught a little heat in an area where we fired up 900 about 4 years ago to a market that had only satellite. Then we hooked up a tower in a small town 4 miles away with UBNT M2 and news spread like wild fire. We went from 40 900 subs to about a dozen, and a pile of radios I don’t want to deploy again. Shame on me for not offering the extended packages at that time for those wanting more bandwidth. I also have the area outside my home town that Century Link offers what they claim is 12 meg service, but it never gets close. I am constantly adding more sectors in these areas, Im getting to the point where I am adding UBNT to offload Canopy, then adding more UBNT to offload the UBNT that was offloading the Canopy, it gets to be a vicious circle. I am already $20 per month more than CL, not sure if a lot of customers would stay if I were to charge them more for what they are getting now. Once again shame on me. The bosses think the prices should be the same across the board, but technically performances cannot be matched across the board, plus Im running ragged satisfying existing customers when I should be looking at new areas, and start the vicious circle all over again LOL. thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
That is a good idea Sent from my wy too expensive android mobile vzw 4gish device. - Reply message - From: Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography Date: Mon, Dec 30, 2013 9:34 PM What we have done is offer the same packages across the board. If you can't get at least the package you want we don't install you. On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:11, heith petersen wi...@mncomm.com wrote: We are getting to the point in a lot of our markets that we need to offer different speed packages. Issue being some markets, being 900 or slightly sub-par infrastructure, we wouldn’t be able to promote these packages across the board. Was curious if others are offering packages to different areas that would not be possible in some? And if so, do you get any backlash from those who cannot get those packages? Is it appropriate to offer extended packages to users on one tower when another tower down the road wouldn’t be capable of these packages? Its bad but we just offer a residential rate, no matter if that customer can get 1 meg down via Canopy 900 or close to 10 meg on a UBNT SM. I have caught a little heat in an area where we fired up 900 about 4 years ago to a market that had only satellite. Then we hooked up a tower in a small town 4 miles away with UBNT M2 and news spread like wild fire. We went from 40 900 subs to about a dozen, and a pile of radios I don’t want to deploy again. Shame on me for not offering the extended packages at that time for those wanting more bandwidth. I also have the area outside my home town that Century Link offers what they claim is 12 meg service, but it never gets close. I am constantly adding more sectors in these areas, Im getting to the point where I am adding UBNT to offload Canopy, then adding more UBNT to offload the UBNT that was offloading the Canopy, it gets to be a vicious circle. I am already $20 per month more than CL, not sure if a lot of customers would stay if I were to charge them more for what they are getting now. Once again shame on me. The bosses think the prices should be the same across the board, but technically performances cannot be matched across the board, plus Im running ragged satisfying existing customers when I should be looking at new areas, and start the vicious circle all over again LOL. thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
It's cut down in confusion. Oh yeah. 5 meg is x in town a but y in town b. And we don't do the upto game. So if you want 5 and can only get 3 we won't install you unless you'll take 3. We don't charge for packages folks can't get. Likewise this keeps our network happy since most links are pretty clean. On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:48, CBB - Jay Fuller par...@cyberbroadband.net wrote: That is a good idea Sent from my wy too expensive android mobile vzw 4gish device. - Reply message - From: Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography Date: Mon, Dec 30, 2013 9:34 PM What we have done is offer the same packages across the board. If you can't get at least the package you want we don't install you. On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:11, heith petersen wi...@mncomm.com wrote: We are getting to the point in a lot of our markets that we need to offer different speed packages. Issue being some markets, being 900 or slightly sub-par infrastructure, we wouldn’t be able to promote these packages across the board. Was curious if others are offering packages to different areas that would not be possible in some? And if so, do you get any backlash from those who cannot get those packages? Is it appropriate to offer extended packages to users on one tower when another tower down the road wouldn’t be capable of these packages? Its bad but we just offer a residential rate, no matter if that customer can get 1 meg down via Canopy 900 or close to 10 meg on a UBNT SM. I have caught a little heat in an area where we fired up 900 about 4 years ago to a market that had only satellite. Then we hooked up a tower in a small town 4 miles away with UBNT M2 and news spread like wild fire. We went from 40 900 subs to about a dozen, and a pile of radios I don’t want to deploy again. Shame on me for not offering the extended packages at that time for those wanting more bandwidth. I also have the area outside my home town that Century Link offers what they claim is 12 meg service, but it never gets close. I am constantly adding more sectors in these areas, Im getting to the point where I am adding UBNT to offload Canopy, then adding more UBNT to offload the UBNT that was offloading the Canopy, it gets to be a vicious circle. I am already $20 per month more than CL, not sure if a lot of customers would stay if I were to charge them more for what they are getting now. Once again shame on me. The bosses think the prices should be the same across the board, but technically performances cannot be matched across the board, plus Im running ragged satisfying existing customers when I should be looking at new areas, and start the vicious circle all over again LOL. thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
Granted that our model is way different then yours, we are a non-profit member owned, volunteer operated, coop, but we give everybody 2 up and 2 down (now that we have an AirFiber backhaul) and are still scrambling to keep up with the members usage (400 members covering 600 square miles). And, they always want more. Charging $30 a month. Of course we only have one paid employee. The folks here in NM are happy to get that as their only alternative is dial-up or satellite. When CenturyLink finally moves into a neighborhood we actually encourage new inquires to go with them as we still have tons of folks with no options other then us. It cost us about $30K every time we have to upgrade the backbone and back haul and APs, but luckily we have enough time between upgrades to bank the funds. I don't know how you guys can make a profit. Phil On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.comwrote: It's cut down in confusion. Oh yeah. 5 meg is x in town a but y in town b. And we don't do the upto game. So if you want 5 and can only get 3 we won't install you unless you'll take 3. We don't charge for packages folks can't get. Likewise this keeps our network happy since most links are pretty clean. On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:48, CBB - Jay Fuller par...@cyberbroadband.net wrote: That is a good idea Sent from my wy too expensive android mobile vzw 4gish device. - Reply message - From: Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography Date: Mon, Dec 30, 2013 9:34 PM What we have done is offer the same packages across the board. If you can't get at least the package you want we don't install you. On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:11, heith petersen wi...@mncomm.com wrote: We are getting to the point in a lot of our markets that we need to offer different speed packages. Issue being some markets, being 900 or slightly sub-par infrastructure, we wouldn’t be able to promote these packages across the board. Was curious if others are offering packages to different areas that would not be possible in some? And if so, do you get any backlash from those who cannot get those packages? Is it appropriate to offer extended packages to users on one tower when another tower down the road wouldn’t be capable of these packages? Its bad but we just offer a residential rate, no matter if that customer can get 1 meg down via Canopy 900 or close to 10 meg on a UBNT SM. I have caught a little heat in an area where we fired up 900 about 4 years ago to a market that had only satellite. Then we hooked up a tower in a small town 4 miles away with UBNT M2 and news spread like wild fire. We went from 40 900 subs to about a dozen, and a pile of radios I don’t want to deploy again. Shame on me for not offering the extended packages at that time for those wanting more bandwidth. I also have the area outside my home town that Century Link offers what they claim is 12 meg service, but it never gets close. I am constantly adding more sectors in these areas, Im getting to the point where I am adding UBNT to offload Canopy, then adding more UBNT to offload the UBNT that was offloading the Canopy, it gets to be a vicious circle. I am already $20 per month more than CL, not sure if a lot of customers would stay if I were to charge them more for what they are getting now. Once again shame on me. The bosses think the prices should be the same across the board, but technically performances cannot be matched across the board, plus Im running ragged satisfying existing customers when I should be looking at new areas, and start the vicious circle all over again LOL. thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
We do it. We manage our entire WISP network like a giant Hotspot. People can choose all sorts of different plans that are tailored for the particular tower, town, or marina they are at. The most speed offerings we currently have at any one location is 2, although we could have many. We can also have those broken down into multiple versions of a cap (we call it a fair-use quota). The most time periods we have at any one location is about 7 (hourly, daily, weekend, week, month, quarter, year). This is because of the seasonal nature of our customers. Marinas have residents more in the Spring, Summer, and Fall. Although we have one marina with giant boats and many of them live aboard year round. Doing it this way, the Mikrotiks control speeds, bursting, and throttling and we never have to bill or collect any money from anyone. If a user moves around on the lake between different marinas, the centralized RADIUS lets him take his settings with him. We have a some APs on a couple of marinas that have sectors pointing to public and State campgrounds, so we pick up that business too. Outdoor UniFis are great for all of this, and we use lots of them on sectors like this. When Wireless Orbit closed its doors, we scrambled to find a back end portal to do all this and we finally settled on one. They are doing some customization for us now to get things the way we want. It is so nice now to be able to see/change all the user data in the SQL database. Wireless Orbit stunk in that respect. If you would like to see our progress, and what the users see, visit http://tinyurl.com/ksqn7zq From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of heith petersen Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 9:11 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography We are getting to the point in a lot of our markets that we need to offer different speed packages. Issue being some markets, being 900 or slightly sub-par infrastructure, we wouldn’t be able to promote these packages across the board. Was curious if others are offering packages to different areas that would not be possible in some? And if so, do you get any backlash from those who cannot get those packages? Is it appropriate to offer extended packages to users on one tower when another tower down the road wouldn’t be capable of these packages? Its bad but we just offer a residential rate, no matter if that customer can get 1 meg down via Canopy 900 or close to 10 meg on a UBNT SM. I have caught a little heat in an area where we fired up 900 about 4 years ago to a market that had only satellite. Then we hooked up a tower in a small town 4 miles away with UBNT M2 and news spread like wild fire. We went from 40 900 subs to about a dozen, and a pile of radios I don’t want to deploy again. Shame on me for not offering the extended packages at that time for those wanting more bandwidth. I also have the area outside my home town that Century Link offers what they claim is 12 meg service, but it never gets close. I am constantly adding more sectors in these areas, Im getting to the point where I am adding UBNT to offload Canopy, then adding more UBNT to offload the UBNT that was offloading the Canopy, it gets to be a vicious circle. I am already $20 per month more than CL, not sure if a lot of customers would stay if I were to charge them more for what they are getting now. Once again shame on me. The bosses think the prices should be the same across the board, but technically performances cannot be matched across the board, plus Im running ragged satisfying existing customers when I should be looking at new areas, and start the vicious circle all over again LOL. thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
We offer two different sets of rate plans in different areas of our network based on the equipment we have on those towers. We offer our standard service everywhere and where we have overbuilt with 5Ghz APs we also offer a 5G service which is faster speeds at the middle and higher tier prices. So for $50 in some areas you can get 3/256 and others you get 5/1. We do not clearly define this as geographic boundaries but more along the lines of whether or not the customer has clear LOS to a tower with 5Ghz APs on it. Overall it's been well received, only a little friction from people angry that they can only get the slower speeds because of their location. We have thought about trying to do different plans by area (mainly to compete more on price with cable/DSL) and came to the conclusion that we might do it via a promotion that is only run in one area, but not by adding permanent cheaper service plans in town - that just didn't seem fair. On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Phil Curnutt pcurn...@gmail.com wrote: Granted that our model is way different then yours, we are a non-profit member owned, volunteer operated, coop, but we give everybody 2 up and 2 down (now that we have an AirFiber backhaul) and are still scrambling to keep up with the members usage (400 members covering 600 square miles). And, they always want more. Charging $30 a month. Of course we only have one paid employee. The folks here in NM are happy to get that as their only alternative is dial-up or satellite. When CenturyLink finally moves into a neighborhood we actually encourage new inquires to go with them as we still have tons of folks with no options other then us. It cost us about $30K every time we have to upgrade the backbone and back haul and APs, but luckily we have enough time between upgrades to bank the funds. I don't know how you guys can make a profit. Phil On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.comwrote: It's cut down in confusion. Oh yeah. 5 meg is x in town a but y in town b. And we don't do the upto game. So if you want 5 and can only get 3 we won't install you unless you'll take 3. We don't charge for packages folks can't get. Likewise this keeps our network happy since most links are pretty clean. On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:48, CBB - Jay Fuller par...@cyberbroadband.net wrote: That is a good idea Sent from my wy too expensive android mobile vzw 4gish device. - Reply message - From: Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography Date: Mon, Dec 30, 2013 9:34 PM What we have done is offer the same packages across the board. If you can't get at least the package you want we don't install you. On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:11, heith petersen wi...@mncomm.com wrote: We are getting to the point in a lot of our markets that we need to offer different speed packages. Issue being some markets, being 900 or slightly sub-par infrastructure, we wouldn’t be able to promote these packages across the board. Was curious if others are offering packages to different areas that would not be possible in some? And if so, do you get any backlash from those who cannot get those packages? Is it appropriate to offer extended packages to users on one tower when another tower down the road wouldn’t be capable of these packages? Its bad but we just offer a residential rate, no matter if that customer can get 1 meg down via Canopy 900 or close to 10 meg on a UBNT SM. I have caught a little heat in an area where we fired up 900 about 4 years ago to a market that had only satellite. Then we hooked up a tower in a small town 4 miles away with UBNT M2 and news spread like wild fire. We went from 40 900 subs to about a dozen, and a pile of radios I don’t want to deploy again. Shame on me for not offering the extended packages at that time for those wanting more bandwidth. I also have the area outside my home town that Century Link offers what they claim is 12 meg service, but it never gets close. I am constantly adding more sectors in these areas, Im getting to the point where I am adding UBNT to offload Canopy, then adding more UBNT to offload the UBNT that was offloading the Canopy, it gets to be a vicious circle. I am already $20 per month more than CL, not sure if a lot of customers would stay if I were to charge them more for what they are getting now. Once again shame on me. The bosses think the prices should be the same across the board, but technically performances cannot be matched across the board, plus Im running ragged satisfying existing customers when I should be looking at new areas, and start the vicious circle all over again LOL. thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] Internet Packages regarding geography
Put a lot of thought into this topic as many have I am sure. I ended up with set plans for everyone across the board and like Matt says, if they cannot get it, we do not sell it. But, I have been thinking of changing our marketing to be different with this issue in mind... the issue of diversity of delivery technologies and environments within our network. We have always marketed four home plans with specified U/D and softcap data amounts. Such as todays plans: Plan 1: 1/.5Mbps Plan 2: 3/1Mbps Plan 3: 4/1.5Mbps Plan 4: 6/2Mbps I have been thinking that we will market either Up To or a specific range like: Plan 1: 1-1.5Mbps Plan 2: 2-3Mbps Plan 3: 3-4Mbps Plan 4: 4-6Mbps In this way, for a customer that tests at 2.5Mbps, they can be sold Plan 2 just like a person in another area could be sold Plan 2 when they test at 3 or more Mbps. The thought is it could solve some issues in marketing and support in that the customer is made aware of that the plan can vary in speed possibly due to network load, weather, or availability. Since our 2014 goal is to have these four home plans at 2, 4, 6 and 8Mbps respectfully (due to fiber upgrades and Gig PtPs), the ranges will be easy to articulate... such as Plan 2 is 2-4Mbps, Plan 2 is 4-6Mbps. Upload speeds would remain static since the smaller ratio is achievable for given download speed 99% of the time. I would also not apply this to business plans, and keep them static with a 'we can or we can not' marketing and sells policy. On Dec 30, 2013 9:35 PM, Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com wrote: What we have done is offer the same packages across the board. If you can't get at least the package you want we don't install you. On Dec 30, 2013, at 21:11, heith petersen wi...@mncomm.com wrote: We are getting to the point in a lot of our markets that we need to offer different speed packages. Issue being some markets, being 900 or slightly sub-par infrastructure, we wouldn’t be able to promote these packages across the board. Was curious if others are offering packages to different areas that would not be possible in some? And if so, do you get any backlash from those who cannot get those packages? Is it appropriate to offer extended packages to users on one tower when another tower down the road wouldn’t be capable of these packages? Its bad but we just offer a residential rate, no matter if that customer can get 1 meg down via Canopy 900 or close to 10 meg on a UBNT SM. I have caught a little heat in an area where we fired up 900 about 4 years ago to a market that had only satellite. Then we hooked up a tower in a small town 4 miles away with UBNT M2 and news spread like wild fire. We went from 40 900 subs to about a dozen, and a pile of radios I don’t want to deploy again. Shame on me for not offering the extended packages at that time for those wanting more bandwidth. I also have the area outside my home town that Century Link offers what they claim is 12 meg service, but it never gets close. I am constantly adding more sectors in these areas, Im getting to the point where I am adding UBNT to offload Canopy, then adding more UBNT to offload the UBNT that was offloading the Canopy, it gets to be a vicious circle. I am already $20 per month more than CL, not sure if a lot of customers would stay if I were to charge them more for what they are getting now. Once again shame on me. The bosses think the prices should be the same across the board, but technically performances cannot be matched across the board, plus Im running ragged satisfying existing customers when I should be looking at new areas, and start the vicious circle all over again LOL. thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
