Re: [WISPA] CDN Overload

[Mike Hammett]

I have the ear of engineers at Level 3's CDN and Akamai. Working on Microsoft 
now (just sent the e-mail a couple minutes ago). Please continue filling out 
the form if you haven't. More information is better than less. 




- 
Mike Hammett 

Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Mike Hammett"  
To: "WISPA General List"  
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 9:44:42 PM 
Subject: [WISPA] CDN Overload 


Have you seen a CDN overloading a customer? Help me gather information on the 
issue. 

What CDN? 
What have you identified the traffic to be? 
What is the access network? 
Where is the rate limiting done? 
How is the rate limiting done (policing vs. queueing, SFQ, PFIFO, etc,, etc.)? 
What is doing the rate limiting? 
What is the rate-limit set to? 
Upstream of the rate-limiter, what are you seeing for inbound traffic? 
One connection or many? 
How much traffic? 
How does other traffic behave when exceeding the rate limit? 
Where is NAT performed? 
What is doing NAT? 
Shared NAT or isolated to that customer? 
Have you done a packet capture before and after the rate limiter? The NAT 
device? 
Would you be willing to send a filtered packet capture (only the frames that 
relate to this CDN) to the CDN if they want it? 



There have been reports of CDNs sending more traffic than the customer can 
handle and ignores TCP convention to slow down. Trying to investigate this 
thoroughly so we can get the CDN to fix their system. Multiple CDNs have been 
shown to do this. 




- 
Mike Hammett 

Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 


___ 
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] CDN Overload

[Mike Hammett]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Jdm0dOBf81kSnXEvVfI6ZJbWFNt5AbYUV8CDxGwLSm8/edit?usp=sharing
 

I have made the anonymized answers public. This will obviously have some bias 
to it given that I mostly know fixed wireless operators, but I'm hoping this 
gets some good distribution to catch more platforms. 




- 
Mike Hammett 

Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Mike Hammett"  
To: "WISPA General List"  
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 9:15:48 AM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CDN Overload 


https://goo.gl/forms/LvgFRsMdNdI8E9HF3 

I have made this into a Google Form to make it easier to track compared to 
randomly formatted responses on multiple mailing lists, Facebook Groups, etc. 




- 
Mike Hammett 

Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Mike Hammett"  
To: "WISPA General List"  
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 9:44:42 PM 
Subject: CDN Overload 


Have you seen a CDN overloading a customer? Help me gather information on the 
issue. 

What CDN? 
What have you identified the traffic to be? 
What is the access network? 
Where is the rate limiting done? 
How is the rate limiting done (policing vs. queueing, SFQ, PFIFO, etc,, etc.)? 
What is doing the rate limiting? 
What is the rate-limit set to? 
Upstream of the rate-limiter, what are you seeing for inbound traffic? 
One connection or many? 
How much traffic? 
How does other traffic behave when exceeding the rate limit? 
Where is NAT performed? 
What is doing NAT? 
Shared NAT or isolated to that customer? 
Have you done a packet capture before and after the rate limiter? The NAT 
device? 
Would you be willing to send a filtered packet capture (only the frames that 
relate to this CDN) to the CDN if they want it? 



There have been reports of CDNs sending more traffic than the customer can 
handle and ignores TCP convention to slow down. Trying to investigate this 
thoroughly so we can get the CDN to fix their system. Multiple CDNs have been 
shown to do this. 




- 
Mike Hammett 

Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 



___ 
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] Any Licensed MW gear doing Channel Aggregation?

[Jon Langeler]

PTP820 can do special things but it's pricey 

Jon Langeler
Michwave Technologies, Inc.
Direct 616.350.8080

> On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:36 PM, Gino Villarini  wrote:
> 
> I got  paths were we have several licenses for 30 mhz  and 40 mhz channels, 
> any gear supports channel aggregation? 
>  
> 
> Gino Villarini
> 
> President
> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Any Licensed MW gear doing Channel Aggregation?

[Mike Hammett]

We have a hard enough time getting vendors to put on ports big enough to handle 
one channel's worth of capacity and now you're wanting to stuff more than one? 
:-p 

I would like to see this too. Help take advantage of scattered spectrum 
resources. 




- 
Mike Hammett 

Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Gino Villarini"  
To: "WISPA General List"  
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 11:36:10 AM 
Subject: [WISPA] Any Licensed MW gear doing Channel Aggregation? 


I got paths were we have several licenses for 30 mhz and 40 mhz channels, any 
gear supports channel aggregation? 



Gino Villarini 
President 
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 

___ 
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] Marina Hotspot Setup

[Brandon Gilles]

Hey guys,

UBNT-Brandon here.

Wanted to bounce in on this one to mention we'll be bringing a lot of the
work that went into enabling Mesh for AmpliFi (see here
)
to some exciting new UniFi products we'll be announcing this year - which
we think will make these (and other outdoor) deployments even easier and
more resilient.

We'll have these on display at WISPAPALOOZA if you want to check them out!

Cheers,
Brandon


On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Timothy Steele 
wrote:

> Some are doing Ethernet over power line to allow more spectrum use there
> are 100's of threads on this topic on the UBNT forums
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 1:50 PM Eagle One Wireless  wrote:
>
>> Looking for some input. When we bought our wireless company we inherited
>> a hotspot at a marina. We had to manually put in mac addresses in the AP’s
>> in the beginning. It was brutal. So few years ago I found Chillifire.net
>> and started using them with custom firmware for Rocket M2.
>>
>> It really a lot of trouble because is there is issue they are in New
>> Zealand so we might be down or having issues for couple days. Since its
>> custom firmware I cant get much help.
>>
>> Anyway fast forward to now. I was wondering what some of you are using at
>> marinas? Ultimately this place doesn’t bring in much money as there is only
>> a couple handfuls of customers that are there all the time. So I don’t want
>> to spend a ton.
>>
>> My other issue is coverage. That’s my biggest complaint there now. We
>> have 1 AP on each covered dock. I have a total of 5 2.4 Aps in a small area
>> and noise is an issue as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> Have any of you tried the Outdoor Unifi with hotspot? If so how are your
>> results?
>>
>>
>>
>> They are only setup to get 4Mb each
>>
>> I will attach a crude map of what it looks like as well.
>>
>> We have a Rocket M5 at tower with sector. Each dock currently has a loco
>> m5 feeding it. Rocket M2 with UBNT Omni on the dock. We also tried UBNT
>> Sector and shot straight down dock but it didn’t help much really. Docks
>> all have metal roof.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> Kevin Melson
>>
>> Eagle One Wireless\PC Station
>>
>> 1801 S Harper Rd
>>
>> Suite 4A
>>
>> Corinth, MS 38834
>>
>> 662-287-1722
>>
>> e...@e1w.com
>>
>> *www.e1w.com *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Any Licensed MW gear doing Channel Aggregation?

[Gino Villarini]

I got  paths were we have several licenses for 30 mhz  and 40 mhz channels, any 
gear supports channel aggregation?



Gino Villarini


President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

[cid:aeronet-logo_310cfc3e-6691-4f69-bd49-b37b834b9238.png]
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] A sad day for All

[Cameron Crum]

Always a great guy to be around. So sad and so young really.

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Eric Sooter  wrote:

> This is very sad news.Being a Platypus user,  I had quite a few
> enjoyable talks with him at his WISPA booth during conferences.   He was a
> great guy.   My condolences and prayers go out to his family.
>
> Eric Sooter
> The Junction Internet LLC
>
>
> On 9/20/2016 11:09 AM, Trina Coffey, Director of Operations wrote:
>
> Hello
>
>
>
> WISPA is saddened to learn of the passing on September 19, 2016 of longtime
> WISPA member and good friend Grant Spradling. Grant was involved in an
> accident a few days ago and succumbed to his injuries. Our hearts and
> prayers go out to Jennifer and the rest of the Spradling family.  If you
> would like to help the family, a Go Fund Me page has been set 
> up.https://www.gofundme.com/2pr6z5sk?ssid=743233687
>   &pos=1
>
>
>
> The world has lost a little of its sparkle with the passing of Grant, we
> will miss him.
>
>
>
>
>
> Respectfully,
>
>
>
> Trina Coffey
>
> Director of Operations
>
> WISPA
> 260-622-5775 direct
> 866-317-2851 ext. 102 (US only)
> 530-227-6696 cell
> www.wispa.org  
>
>
>
> Come see us at WISPAPALOOZA  
>  !!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing 
> listWireless@wispa.orghttp://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] Moment of silence

[Patrick Leary]

Dear Nathan, et al,

I please request that in the opening ceremony for WISPAPALOOZA that we have a 
moment of silence in recognition of the tragic passing of Grant Spradling. He 
was such a terrific guy. He always had a smile and was a great friend of this 
community.

Sincerely,


Patrick Leary
Baicells___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] A sad day for All

[Eric Sooter]

This is very sad news.Being a Platypus user,  I had quite a few 
enjoyable talks with him at his WISPA booth during conferences.   He was 
a great guy.   My condolences and prayers go out to his family.


Eric Sooter
The Junction Internet LLC


On 9/20/2016 11:09 AM, Trina Coffey, Director of Operations wrote:

Hello

  


WISPA is saddened to learn of the passing on September 19, 2016 of longtime
WISPA member and good friend Grant Spradling. Grant was involved in an
accident a few days ago and succumbed to his injuries. Our hearts and
prayers go out to Jennifer and the rest of the Spradling family.  If you
would like to help the family, a Go Fund Me page has been set up.
https://www.gofundme.com/2pr6z5sk?ssid=743233687
 &pos=1

  


The world has lost a little of its sparkle with the passing of Grant, we
will miss him.

  

  


Respectfully,

  


Trina Coffey

Director of Operations

WISPA

260-622-5775 direct

866-317-2851 ext. 102 (US only)

530-227-6696 cell

www.wispa.org 

  


Come see us at WISPAPALOOZA  !!

  





___
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] Shielding FM noise with conduit?

[Jeremy]

We put boxes every 15' or so and attach the cable inside the box.  I was
really surprised how much pull was still on that top section three years
later.  I have been considering using the cable grab pulling mesh deals, or
running a steel cable up the inside with the cables tied to it (but that
pretty much makes pulling anything else through impossible).  So for now we
keep mounting access boxes all the way up.

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Chadwick Wachs  wrote:

> Due to the tower shape, only 30' sections would dangle. However, I used a
> water tight rubber grommet at the top (designed for this conduit) to
> squeeze and hold the cable in place. Also put a tight 90 degree turn in the
> conduit at the top to increase some friction.  Cable was also secured
> outside with ties incase the rubber grommet allowed slippage.
>
> Seems to be solid. Don't know about a full 100' dangling section though...
>
> On Sep 21, 2016 7:38 AM, "Faisal Imtiaz"  wrote:
>
>> Cool, Thanks for completing the loop.
>>
>> The one concern I would have is that inside the 100ft section, the
>> Ethernet cable would be 'dangling' without any support..
>> How did you manage to secure that ?
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>> Miami, FL 33155
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>>
>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>>
>> --
>>
>> *From: *"Chadwick Wachs" 
>> *To: *"WISPA General List" 
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 20, 2016 12:10:10 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Shielding FM noise with conduit?
>>
>> Wanted to circle back on this with results.  Bought a 100' section of
>> metal lined LiquidTight at Home Depot (3/4" since I only needed 2 cables).
>> The 100' section was exactly the right length to get from the antennas all
>> the way to my cabinet in the machine room so now the cables are protected
>> in the cable trays down below as well.
>> Used hose clamps to attach the conduit to the tower every ~6 feet. Since
>> I had to make 2 90 degree turns on the way down, the flexible conduit was
>> great.  I did pull my two Ethernet wires through the conduit while it was
>> on the ground - figured that would be much easier - and it was. Cable is
>> Ubiquiti Carrier Shielded (the double shielded version).  I also added the
>> ends with the grounding cable and grounded both the top and the bottom of
>> the Ethernet to a good ground.
>>
>> Been up for about two weeks now with no Ethernet issues at all. Did not
>> put Ferrites on these two cables like all the rest of mine have.  I still
>> get an occasional Ethernet packet drop or error on the Ferrited cables. So
>> far, solid on the two cables in the LiquidTight.
>>
>> Yes, fiber is still a better long term solution but this was fairly
>> inexpensive and quick and is working great.  Thanks for the suggestion.
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Sean Heskett  wrote:
>>
>>> my bad, i was answering late in the evening, i was thinking PVC when you
>>> said EMT.  EMT will work too since it's metal but it's hard to work with on
>>> a tower.  the 3/4" liquidtight that you linked to will fit 3 cables.  we
>>> usually run 1 1/2" or 1 3/4" (i can't remember which at the moment) and you
>>> can fit 13 cables in it.  we run it up to a box on the tower and then use
>>> 3/4" to run from the box to the individual APs or backhauls.  we run the
>>> conduit first and then drop the ethernet cables down from the top.
>>> -sean
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Chadwick Wachs 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Interesting... Certainly easier to run.  Because I have to make two 90
 degree turns (damn "H" shaped tower), I think I'll pull my Ethernet through
 it on the ground and then run it up the tower with cable in it.  I'm
 guessing that cutting it and putting 90 degree elbows (with cable pull
 windows) on it is a bad idea from an RF standpoint?
 My local HD has this in stock:

 http://www.homedepot.com/p/AFC-Cable-Systems-3-4-in-x-100-
 ft-Liquidtight-Flexible-Steel-Conduit-6203-30-00/202262413

 That looks what you describe.

 I have to ask - from a physics(?) standpoint, what keeps RF out of the
 Liquidtight but not EMT?

 On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Sean Heskett  wrote:

> If you do conduit you need to use liquidtight with the metal inside.
> EMT will do nothing to stop the RF from bleeding.
> We've done it on several towers with great success.
>
> -Sean
>
> On Thursday, September 8, 2016, Chadwick Wachs 
> wrote:
>
>> With two new FM stations moving onto the tower I am on, I need to
>> solve the FM noise problem once and for all.  I've been using Ferrites on
>> each end of the Ethernet cable and its been pretty successful but I need 
>> to
>> add a couple more antennas so I am considering conduit.
>>
>>
>> This is not my area of expertise but from what I read, it sounds 

Re: [WISPA] CDN Overload

[Mike Hammett]

https://goo.gl/forms/LvgFRsMdNdI8E9HF3 

I have made this into a Google Form to make it easier to track compared to 
randomly formatted responses on multiple mailing lists, Facebook Groups, etc. 




- 
Mike Hammett 

Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Mike Hammett"  
To: "WISPA General List"  
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 9:44:42 PM 
Subject: CDN Overload 


Have you seen a CDN overloading a customer? Help me gather information on the 
issue. 

What CDN? 
What have you identified the traffic to be? 
What is the access network? 
Where is the rate limiting done? 
How is the rate limiting done (policing vs. queueing, SFQ, PFIFO, etc,, etc.)? 
What is doing the rate limiting? 
What is the rate-limit set to? 
Upstream of the rate-limiter, what are you seeing for inbound traffic? 
One connection or many? 
How much traffic? 
How does other traffic behave when exceeding the rate limit? 
Where is NAT performed? 
What is doing NAT? 
Shared NAT or isolated to that customer? 
Have you done a packet capture before and after the rate limiter? The NAT 
device? 
Would you be willing to send a filtered packet capture (only the frames that 
relate to this CDN) to the CDN if they want it? 



There have been reports of CDNs sending more traffic than the customer can 
handle and ignores TCP convention to slow down. Trying to investigate this 
thoroughly so we can get the CDN to fix their system. Multiple CDNs have been 
shown to do this. 




- 
Mike Hammett 

Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Shielding FM noise with conduit?

[Chadwick Wachs]

Due to the tower shape, only 30' sections would dangle. However, I used a
water tight rubber grommet at the top (designed for this conduit) to
squeeze and hold the cable in place. Also put a tight 90 degree turn in the
conduit at the top to increase some friction.  Cable was also secured
outside with ties incase the rubber grommet allowed slippage.

Seems to be solid. Don't know about a full 100' dangling section though...

On Sep 21, 2016 7:38 AM, "Faisal Imtiaz"  wrote:

> Cool, Thanks for completing the loop.
>
> The one concern I would have is that inside the 100ft section, the
> Ethernet cable would be 'dangling' without any support..
> How did you manage to secure that ?
>
> Regards.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Chadwick Wachs" 
> *To: *"WISPA General List" 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 20, 2016 12:10:10 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Shielding FM noise with conduit?
>
> Wanted to circle back on this with results.  Bought a 100' section of
> metal lined LiquidTight at Home Depot (3/4" since I only needed 2 cables).
> The 100' section was exactly the right length to get from the antennas all
> the way to my cabinet in the machine room so now the cables are protected
> in the cable trays down below as well.
> Used hose clamps to attach the conduit to the tower every ~6 feet. Since I
> had to make 2 90 degree turns on the way down, the flexible conduit was
> great.  I did pull my two Ethernet wires through the conduit while it was
> on the ground - figured that would be much easier - and it was. Cable is
> Ubiquiti Carrier Shielded (the double shielded version).  I also added the
> ends with the grounding cable and grounded both the top and the bottom of
> the Ethernet to a good ground.
>
> Been up for about two weeks now with no Ethernet issues at all. Did not
> put Ferrites on these two cables like all the rest of mine have.  I still
> get an occasional Ethernet packet drop or error on the Ferrited cables. So
> far, solid on the two cables in the LiquidTight.
>
> Yes, fiber is still a better long term solution but this was fairly
> inexpensive and quick and is working great.  Thanks for the suggestion.
>
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Sean Heskett  wrote:
>
>> my bad, i was answering late in the evening, i was thinking PVC when you
>> said EMT.  EMT will work too since it's metal but it's hard to work with on
>> a tower.  the 3/4" liquidtight that you linked to will fit 3 cables.  we
>> usually run 1 1/2" or 1 3/4" (i can't remember which at the moment) and you
>> can fit 13 cables in it.  we run it up to a box on the tower and then use
>> 3/4" to run from the box to the individual APs or backhauls.  we run the
>> conduit first and then drop the ethernet cables down from the top.
>> -sean
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Chadwick Wachs 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting... Certainly easier to run.  Because I have to make two 90
>>> degree turns (damn "H" shaped tower), I think I'll pull my Ethernet through
>>> it on the ground and then run it up the tower with cable in it.  I'm
>>> guessing that cutting it and putting 90 degree elbows (with cable pull
>>> windows) on it is a bad idea from an RF standpoint?
>>> My local HD has this in stock:
>>>
>>> http://www.homedepot.com/p/AFC-Cable-Systems-3-4-in-x-
>>> 100-ft-Liquidtight-Flexible-Steel-Conduit-6203-30-00/202262413
>>>
>>> That looks what you describe.
>>>
>>> I have to ask - from a physics(?) standpoint, what keeps RF out of the
>>> Liquidtight but not EMT?
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Sean Heskett  wrote:
>>>
 If you do conduit you need to use liquidtight with the metal inside.
 EMT will do nothing to stop the RF from bleeding.
 We've done it on several towers with great success.

 -Sean

 On Thursday, September 8, 2016, Chadwick Wachs 
 wrote:

> With two new FM stations moving onto the tower I am on, I need to
> solve the FM noise problem once and for all.  I've been using Ferrites on
> each end of the Ethernet cable and its been pretty successful but I need 
> to
> add a couple more antennas so I am considering conduit.
>
>
> This is not my area of expertise but from what I read, it sounds like
> running conduit up the tower (only 75' for my antennas) is the best long
> term solution?  My plan was to buy some 3/4" EMT in 10' sections and clamp
> it to the tower from bottom to top and run my shielded cables inside of
> that.
>
> Is that the route to go?  I am guessing I want to keep my service
> loops at the top of the conduit pretty short or I negate what I just did. 
> I
> do have longer loops at the bottom in the building so my Ethernet cables
> are longer than my antenna ground wires. I'm planning on not putting
> 

Re: [WISPA] Shielding FM noise with conduit?

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Cool, Thanks for completing the loop. 

The one concern I would have is that inside the 100ft section, the Ethernet 
cable would be 'dangling' without any support.. 
How did you manage to secure that ? 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Chadwick Wachs" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 12:10:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Shielding FM noise with conduit?

> Wanted to circle back on this with results. Bought a 100' section of metal 
> lined
> LiquidTight at Home Depot (3/4" since I only needed 2 cables). The 100' 
> section
> was exactly the right length to get from the antennas all the way to my 
> cabinet
> in the machine room so now the cables are protected in the cable trays down
> below as well.
> Used hose clamps to attach the conduit to the tower every ~6 feet. Since I had
> to make 2 90 degree turns on the way down, the flexible conduit was great. I
> did pull my two Ethernet wires through the conduit while it was on the ground 
> -
> figured that would be much easier - and it was. Cable is Ubiquiti Carrier
> Shielded (the double shielded version). I also added the ends with the
> grounding cable and grounded both the top and the bottom of the Ethernet to a
> good ground.

> Been up for about two weeks now with no Ethernet issues at all. Did not put
> Ferrites on these two cables like all the rest of mine have. I still get an
> occasional Ethernet packet drop or error on the Ferrited cables. So far, solid
> on the two cables in the LiquidTight.

> Yes, fiber is still a better long term solution but this was fairly 
> inexpensive
> and quick and is working great. Thanks for the suggestion.

> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Sean Heskett < af...@zirkel.us > wrote:

>> my bad, i was answering late in the evening, i was thinking PVC when you said
>> EMT. EMT will work too since it's metal but it's hard to work with on a 
>> tower.
>> the 3/4" liquidtight that you linked to will fit 3 cables. we usually run 1
>> 1/2" or 1 3/4" (i can't remember which at the moment) and you can fit 13 
>> cables
>> in it. we run it up to a box on the tower and then use 3/4" to run from the 
>> box
>> to the individual APs or backhauls. we run the conduit first and then drop 
>> the
>> ethernet cables down from the top.
>> -sean

>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Chadwick Wachs < c...@auwireless.net > 
>> wrote:

>>> Interesting... Certainly easier to run. Because I have to make two 90 degree
>>> turns (damn "H" shaped tower), I think I'll pull my Ethernet through it on 
>>> the
>>> ground and then run it up the tower with cable in it. I'm guessing that 
>>> cutting
>>> it and putting 90 degree elbows (with cable pull windows) on it is a bad 
>>> idea
>>> from an RF standpoint?
>>> My local HD has this in stock:

>>> http://www.homedepot.com/p/AFC-Cable-Systems-3-4-in-x-100-ft-Liquidtight-Flexible-Steel-Conduit-6203-30-00/202262413

>>> That looks what you describe.

>>> I have to ask - from a physics(?) standpoint, what keeps RF out of the
>>> Liquidtight but not EMT?

>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Sean Heskett < af...@zirkel.us > wrote:

 If you do conduit you need to use liquidtight with the metal inside. EMT 
 will do
 nothing to stop the RF from bleeding.
 We've done it on several towers with great success.

 -Sean

 On Thursday, September 8, 2016, Chadwick Wachs < c...@auwireless.net > 
 wrote:

> With two new FM stations moving onto the tower I am on, I need to solve 
> the FM
> noise problem once and for all. I've been using Ferrites on each end of 
> the
> Ethernet cable and its been pretty successful but I need to add a couple 
> more
> antennas so I am considering conduit.

> This is not my area of expertise but from what I read, it sounds like 
> running
> conduit up the tower (only 75' for my antennas) is the best long term 
> solution?
> My plan was to buy some 3/4" EMT in 10' sections and clamp it to the 
> tower from
> bottom to top and run my shielded cables inside of that.

> Is that the route to go? I am guessing I want to keep my service loops at 
> the
> top of the conduit pretty short or I negate what I just did. I do have 
> longer
> loops at the bottom in the building so my Ethernet cables are longer than 
> my
> antenna ground wires. I'm planning on not putting Ferrites on the cables 
> that
> are in the conduit.

> Tower has 5 FM stations on it, a 900mhz paging company and two UHF DTV 
> stations
> - along with some other 5 Ghz stuff. The FM stations are "lower" power 
> (250 -
> 400 watts) but it sounds like those are the culprit for Ethernet issues 
> (other
> than AM which is no where near this tower).

> Thanks for the advice.

 _