Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM
On-list would be greatly appreciated. On 5/15/2014 10:26 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: Nathan, Can you share the recipe for running Asterisk on a Routerboard ? On-list or off list will be greatly appreciated. I am interested in testing this ... 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 - Original Message - From: Nathan Anderson nath...@fsr.com To: sc...@brevardwireless.com sc...@brevardwireless.com, WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org, Bryce Duchcherer bduc...@netago.ca Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 5:46:54 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM Yeah, I've thought about trying a Raspberry Pi as a cheap, IP-only PBX. Should have more than enough oomph for a small office environment. We have had great success running Asterisk directly on MikroTik RouterBoards, inside of a MetaROUTER VM. Of course, both this solution and the Raspberry Pi can only be used in a pure IP environment. Those Blackfin-based embedded Asterisk systems that Atcom et al. manufacture (http://www.rowetel.com/blog/?page_id=440) are also intriguing, but I haven't been able to find a good U.S.-based supplier/distributor. -- Nathan -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Carullo Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 6:53 AM To: Bryce Duchcherer; sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM Oh yeah - I should have noted - we have one running at customer site for 16 phones and its a blueberry pie or whatever those things are called lol. Cost less than 100 bucks and we even have two network interfaces on them (one usb) Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 http://www.flhsi.com/files/emaillogo.jpg From: Bryce Duchcherer bduc...@netago.ca Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 6:16 PM To: sc...@brevardwireless.com sc...@brevardwireless.com, WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: RE: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM I have one of these coming in to try out, they're dirt cheap and are supposed to be decent. They support up to 8 calls and are supposed to run on asterisk. http://www.atcom.cn/IP02.html Bryce D NETAGO From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Carullo Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 16:08 To: WISPA General List; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM I've never been a fan of anything grandstream has ever made so I wouldn't go there. JMO Get some other solution for the PBX (running your own software on a nice little atom works great / some flavor of asterisk) and do yourself a favor and pick up some yealink phones. The name kept me away from the longest time but I have tried dozens of phones and right now a T46G is on my desk and I won't give it up. Great price too. Best phone I have ever used and previously I had polycom soundpoint 650. This one hands down is a better solution and its half the price. Sh... don't tell everyone I need them in stock! Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 http://www.flhsi.com/files/emaillogo.jpg From: Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 1:29 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM It seems like a box on site would make routing/nat issues easier to manage especially for customers who may not have our Internet or want to keep a second internet provider for redundancy. It seems like a bunch of ip phones behind nat connecting up to our switch or a hosted solution would be problematic. If you have a suggestion on a solid solution i'm all ears, want to learn whats available and how others are doing this. On May 14, 2014 1:21 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net wrote: Why do you want to put a 'box' on-site ? Why not hosted PBX, and have IP Phones ? Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 tel:305%20663%205518%20x%20232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 tel:%28305%29663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net From: Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 11:40:10 PM Subject: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM Anyone tried out this Grandstream IP PBX? Looking for a low cost option we can use for small businesses with 4-8
Re: [WISPA] Small NEMA Enclosures
$8.12 not $32.50 here through 5/5 On 4/30/2014 11:37 PM, D. Ryan Spott wrote: This works great for the side of a house: $32.50 http://www.lowes.com/pd_126702-74985-57095_0__?productId=1128857 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Small NEMA Enclosures
Lowe's (Ohio). Click on the link for pricing in your area. http://www.lowes.com/pd_126702-74985-57095_0__?productId=1128857 If you cannot get it for that price and need a bulk buy, I am sure I can run to the store and ship some to you. On 5/1/2014 10:09 AM, Ryan Spott wrote: WHAT?!?! Where is this?! -- D. Ryan Spott | Iron Goat Networks, llc broadband | telco | colo | community PO Box 1232 / 603 W. Stevens Sultan, WA 98284 x-apple-data-detectors://0/0 360-799-0552 tel:360-799-0552 | gtalk:rsp...@irongoat.net mailto:rsp...@irongoat.net On May 1, 2014, at 5:42 AM, Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net mailto:erik.ander...@hocking.net wrote: $8.12 not $32.50 here through 5/5 On 4/30/2014 11:37 PM, D. Ryan Spott wrote: This works great for the side of a house: $32.50 http://www.lowes.com/pd_126702-74985-57095_0__?productId=1128857 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto: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] Solar powered repeater kit
dmsolar.com has a pair of 150W for $365 with shipping. They used to be sold through Amazon On 4/18/2014 8:35 PM, Blair Davis wrote: Now if I could find those prices in the Mid-West... I mean, the last time I looked it was still around $3-4 a watt. At a $1 per watt, I have some other uses... -- On 4/18/2014 5:41 PM, Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) wrote: No. But I do have a site. http://www.solarblvd.com/ is where I got my last bit of stuff. 250 watts for my motorhome. At the time, panels and a 40 amp charge controller *with float charging* was around $400. They have pretty high wind load so you'll need a good structure to hold them up. I've also had better luck (so far) with wet cell golf cart 6vdc batteries than with anything else. I get them from the regional Interstate Battery shop, factory blems run less than half the cost of new and have a 90 day warranty. Others have done a lot more of this than I have though. marlon *From:* Mike Hammett mailto:wispawirel...@ics-il.net *Sent:* Tuesday, April 08, 2014 9:16 AM *To:* WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Solar powered repeater kit I'm interested as well. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Tuesday, April 8, 2014 11:00:42 AM *Subject: *[WISPA] Solar powered repeater kit Has anyone deployed a solar powered repeater for a single customer? For example, their house is in the middle of a forest but you can provide service at the end of their lane. This comes up here and there and I'm looking to put together a kit of Nanos, solar panels, battery and give the customer the price. I thought I would ask here before reinventing the wheel. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 ___ 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 -- West Michigan Wireless ISP Allegan, Michigan 49010 269-686-8648 A Division of: Camp Communication Services, INC ___ 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] Solar powered repeater kit
How do you guys secure these totes? Mix an 80 lb sack of Quickcrete in the bottom? Padlock on the outside -- one key for you and one for the customer? Do you run two pvc sweeps - one for current and one for cat-5? Anything to keep pests out of those sweeps? Do you insulate around the battery to prolong battery life during those long cold spells? Thanks. On 4/8/2014 5:01 PM, Chris Hudson wrote: I have a customer with an old telephone pole that wasn't used up the hill from his house and I put the following: (My costs) 1x Solar Cynergy 100W 12V panel - $125+shipping 1x Morningstar Sunsaver SS-10 10A, 12V Pwm Charge Controller $44.46+shipping 2x 35Ah SLA Batteries $65+tax each 2x TP-DCDC-1224 $32ish+shipping each 1x Tractor Supply Plastic Box $69.99+tax - http://www.tractorsupply.com/en/store/tractor-supply-coreg%3B-chest-32-in?cm _vc=-10005 1x RB-Sextant for the link to our tower 2x RB-Omnitik to link to house could be an RB-SXT and bridge it I think we charged $700 for the setup. Chris I just checked and it has been up for 220days. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Robert Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 11:31 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Solar powered repeater kit Yes, We got a pair of 100 Watt panels at a great price off newegg.com , no shipping, which for solar panels was a deal maker! Only used one panel. We build the mounts with Home Depot Superstrut and 1 conduit. ~$50 We used http://thesolarstore.com/charge-controllers-charge-controllers-morningstar-p rostar-charge-controller-volt-p-455.html ~$100 And a Walmart 124 Amp hour battery... ~$100 Good for 1.4 weeks no sun.. We use Mikrotik so we get remote voltage that way, use a 750UP for that with UBNT, but be sure and correct the voltage on your monitoring... You are working off 12V so you have to worry about your amperage through the 750UP, but with UBNT gear that shouldn't be a problem.. MT radios are a problem at 12V... So we use a 12-24V converter. ($70) We put it in a Walmart plastic tub. The one that is strong enough to stand on. ~$30 We figured we saved about $400 vs buying a pre-built solution. More like $700 over Tycon's solution. Panels were $299 for 2 they are still there. But just saw this which is a good deal too! Complete Solar Kit 200W: 2pcs 100W Solar Panels+20' Solar cable in Pair+PWM 30A Charge Controller+2 Sets Z Brackets+MC4 Branch Connectors Pair+Pair http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA29R0RA4028 On 04/08/2014 09:00 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: Has anyone deployed a solar powered repeater for a single customer? For example, their house is in the middle of a forest but you can provide service at the end of their lane. This comes up here and there and I'm looking to put together a kit of Nanos, solar panels, battery and give the customer the price. I thought I would ask here before reinventing the wheel. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 ___ 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] PMP100 Software Revisions
Just a head's up: we encountered some latency issues with 12.1 for VoIP. The prioritize ACKs used to be just a feature available on the AP (if I recall right) and now exists at both the AP and SM (moved to a different configuration screen). Whether it was available of not on the old version is irrelevant; the functionality has changed. Given that VoIP is generally UDP, the hypothesis is that there is greater queuing and TCP ACKs are being bumped up more than they used to be. The second hypothesis is that the new firmware is using up more system resources and the TCP ACKs logic is causing increased latency in general (although this has not been a measured successfully). Bottom line: prior to 12.1, we did not need to worry about disabling prioritize ACKs feature for people with VoIP. I am curious if others experienced this as well. I have not seen anything on their forums. But in a real world test case, disabling the feature instantly eliminated problems that suddenly appeared after an upgrade. As such, we still have part of the network on 11.2 and part on 12.1. Lastly, if you are contemplating upgrades but are not yet committed ... For installers who use their phone to interface with the PMP100 while balancing on a ladder/roof and aiming the equipment, the 11.x+ interface is much more responsive design which increases ease of use and will save installer time. The link status screen itself if worth the update. Pull this screen up on your Android/iPhone for two different firmware versions and your installer will be thrilled. That is reason enough to get beyond the 10.x firmware. On 3/11/2014 6:56 PM, Adam Kennedy wrote: I contacted Cambium support about this recently. The upgrade path the technician gave me was this: *7.3.6 - 8.2.7 -- 9.0 -- 9.4.2 -- 9.5 -- 10.3.2 -- 10.5 -- 11.0.1 - 11.2 - 12.1* * * They also indicated that there were timing changes in 10.x and that causes some issues with older firmware. They highly recommend to run the 12.1 firmware whenever possible. We are using 12.1 without any issues so far in a couple different cells. *Adam Kennedy* *|* Network Engineer Watch Communications PO Box 8 *|* Rushville, Indiana *|* 46173 866-586-1518 adamkenn...@omnicity.net mailto:adamkenn...@omnicity.net www.broadbandnetworks.com http://www.broadbandnetworks.com/ From: Mark Spring m...@nktelco.net mailto:m...@nktelco.net Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org Date: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 at 1:54 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] PMP100 Software Revisions I have been using: 8.1.5.1 - 8.2.7 - 9.0 - 9.5 - 10.3.2 - 10.5 - 11.2 there seems to be some debate online about which path to use and this is the one I elected to go with, right or wrong. We were stopping at 11.0.1 but I have 11.2 which I assume is going to provide some benefit. Anyways, I'm just going to try to even the playing field in the direction that I have been heading but I may have to escalate this project in order to maintain a good level of service. Open to suggestion as this unfolds, thanks for your input! Mark Spring Systems Analyst New Knoxville Telephone Company 301 W. South St. New Knoxville, OH 45871 419.753.5000 This message and the file(s) attached are confidential and proprietary information of NKTelco for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any unauthorized review, distribution, disclosure, copying, use, or dissemination, either whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Do not transmit these documents, in any form, to any third party without the expressed written permission of NKTelco. On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Tony Iacopi t...@razzolink.com mailto:t...@razzolink.com wrote: The recommended upgrade path is 8.2.4 or 8.2.7 - 9.0 - 9.3 - 9.4 - 9.4.2 - 9.5 or 10.5 - 11.2 you could try direct but we have always followed this just in case. Thanks Tony Iacopi *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Mark Spring *Sent:* Tuesday, March 11, 2014 10:26 AM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* [WISPA] PMP100 Software Revisions Folks, I am trying to improve the performance of our aging pmp100 platform and have started upgrading some of the SM's. We noticed one customer having some side effects after moving them past 9.5 and the AP is still back at 9.5 yet. Can anybody comment on any scenarios where they noticed software versions that don't play well together? We can upgrade the AP's, but my main concern was to upgrade some of the 8.2.2, 8.2.7, and 9.0 SM's and get them to newer software. If anybody knows of any major gotchas on the process, it would save us some grief! Thanks, Mark Spring Systems Analyst New Knoxville Telephone Company 301 W. South St.
Re: [WISPA] youtube down
Bench test = sleep more. ;) On 2/9/2014 3:29 PM, heith petersen wrote: I am hoping to get this all straightened out shortly so we can start on routing these networks. I see a lot more sleepless nights ahead, but I think I have the owners realizing that it will be all worth it. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Recommend Managed Switch
Heat source? We use a UPS. The enclosures are cold, but not as cold as the outside air and we have not had a problem using indoor rated Cisco switches (even in our recent -19 weather). We do use fans for cooling during other seasons. But, we have had fans die and open the box to discover an estimated 110-130 degree weather while the switches kept on humming along. Not recommended, but that has been our experience. In fact, I do not recall a single Cisco switch going bad at a tower site using this setup, just one or two ports. All these switches have been ebay buys. On 2/5/2014 9:34 PM, Phil Curnutt wrote: We've been running a Cisco WC2955T-12 outside in an unheated enclosure (Northern New Mexico) for about three years with a hiccup. It is only has twelve ports, but is 24 VDC and good to -10C. Also has a DIN mount. Think I found it used on line for about $800. Phil On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com mailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: How much are you looking to spend? direct DC switches are often very expensive, same for lower temp range ones. It may be cheaper to put a heater in an enclosure and run an indoor switch. *Josh Reynolds* Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS j...@spitwspots.com mailto:j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 02/05/2014 01:05 PM, Chris Fabien wrote: These all look like indoor switches to me, are they OK at -20 or -30 C? Was hoping for outdoor rated and DC power, this box already has 24v and 48v power. My issue with the CRS is it only apparently supports STP on a bridge interface which is CPU throughput limited. Also the switch functionality seems about half finished currently. On Feb 5, 2014 5:01 PM, timothy steele timothy.pct...@gmail.com mailto:timothy.pct...@gmail.com wrote: Turn routing off in pfsense? Think there is a switch app for it too Or Cisco off eBay or have the guys at linkteks get the microtik working --- Sent from Mailbox https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox for iPhone On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com mailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: He's looking for a switch, not a router. *Josh Reynolds* Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS j...@spitwspots.com mailto:j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 02/05/2014 12:55 PM, timothy steele wrote: Build your self a a PFsense box the GUI is very easy and how to's all over the pfsense forums --- Sent from Mailbox https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox for iPhone On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Harold Bledsoe hbledso...@gmail.com mailto:hbledso...@gmail.com wrote: Here's another option too: http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/SMC-EZ-Switch-SMCGS26C-Smart-switch-26-ports-managed-desktop-rack/3191553.aspx -Hal On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com mailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: Not sure if it's outdoor temp rated, but for the price of an HP 1810-24G v2 (around $250), you really can't go wrong. Very good feature sets, excellent prices. http://h17007.www1.hp.com/us/en/networking/products/switches/HP_1810_Switch_Series/index.aspx#tab=TAB2 Josh Reynolds :: Chief Information Officer :: SPITwSPOTS :: Ubiquiti Certified AirMax Trainer :: On 02/05/2014 10:49 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: I am trying to set up a VLAN trunk between our office and tower over a 60ghz gigabit link. I want to have all the tower APs and backhauls plugged in to a port at the tower and have them show up on a matching port in the office, one VLAN per port. I tried to do this with one of the new Mikrotik CRS but the configuration is incredibly clunky and I can't get it working. They also seem to be missing a few key features like STP. I need a switch that has: tag/untag traffic on access ports run STP/RSTP on two trunk ports for a primary and backup wireless link 1 or preferably more SFP ports (gigabit link is fiber interface) min 16 copper gige ports outdoor temperature rated prefer runs on DC power Any suggestions?
Re: [WISPA] New Xbox1 Constant Stream or Update
I have seen new games require massive downloads. Thanks for the heads up. Have not seen an Xbox do this. Was it the new Xbox One? On 11/29/2013 9:37 AM, heith petersen wrote: I was working with a customer last Wednesday who was complaining about speeds. He is in an area that I am only able to offer 3 down 1.5 up. Anyways when I pulled his connection he was streaming the full 3 meg. I had him power off the XBox and it flat lined. Then he plugged it back in and without turning it on it acquired a wireless lease from the router and continued to pound the internet connection. I am just hoping that it was doing an update or something. Otherwise it could cripple a lot of links for some customers. ___ 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] Dielectric Grease
In a dusty (or bug ridden) location, dielectric on cat-5 can save you truck rolls. Often the problem does not occur for about two years, but dielectric does seem to keep the grit out of the connection. Moisture causing corrosion? I have not had many of those problems either with or without dielectric unless equipment was installed in a really poor location. That said, having a problem at the radio itself is a rarity. Having the problem at a surge is much more likely. At the radio, ants are the most common culprit for high CRCs, and even that does not happen very often. On 11/15/2013 1:49 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: Some people are. Majority are not. No ones seems to have any evidence suggesting it helps but there hasn't been anything to show it hurts. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:48 PM, ~NGL~ n...@ngl.net wrote: Anybody using dielectric grease on RJ45 connectors? Thanx NGL If you can read this Thank A Teacher. And if it's in English Thank A Soldier! ___ 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] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
On 8/22/2013 5:23 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: I do not yet know of any source for dual polarity 900 MHz 90* sectors that are 18 dB nor any 900 MHz dual polarity CPE antenna that are 25 dB of gain. Agreed, but again, what would be the point? EIRP of 36 - 25 dBi antenna - 1dB line loss = 11 dBm TPO. Are you really going to turn down the radio to 11 dBm? The manufacturers are not doing it because they know that they are creating giant antennas with massive wind low to permit you to break the regulations and incur an FCC visit. I suspect most WISPs have installations that are not in compliance. In fact, most public sector installations and energy companies are probably non compliant. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
Yes, but wind load is dramatically different. Bottom line is there is simply not enough demand for high windload antennas to justify the compliance risk. UBNT was safe until they started making some decent money. Then, after massive legal bills, they were forced to implement DFS because their customers were not being compliant. Production line had to be modified, coding had to be done to appease the FCC and their communications lawyers. It was not UBNT's fault, but in the eyes of our beautiful regulators it was. In the 5.x range, higher gain is manufactured due to licensed frequencies being available, and thus the ability to shift liability while increasing demand. As I said, the problem is the regulations, not the manufacturers. But if you disagree, you just might have another business opportunity. I am not trying to argue. I am not happy about the regs/equipment limitations. I use 900 mhz a lot. I would love to take some 4W transceiver amps in the 900 range and throw in 17 dbi antennas (I know of a few installations that have done this). But just because one can get away with it does not mean it is good business practice. The public sector does not seem to worry about compliance. Why not? Perhaps the WISPS should simply start filling out FCC forms reporting violations from the smart meters.*Or better yet, start writing press releases about smart meter non compliance with the regulations and getting the releases into the hands of the smart meter activists (start with infowars.com and drudgereport.com) who can flood the FCC with reported violations.* That seems like an activity WISPA could handle. If this was done, I suspect the regulations would change which would result in equipment being available. On 8/23/2013 9:26 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: All of the other bands have EIRP limits. You have to worry on The AP side in 2.4 and 5.8. You have to worry on both the AP and CPE in 5.3 and 5.4. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net *To: *wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Friday, August 23, 2013 8:15:27 AM *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas On 8/22/2013 5:23 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: I do not yet know of any source for dual polarity 900 MHz 90* sectors that are 18 dB nor any 900 MHz dual polarity CPE antenna that are 25 dB of gain. Agreed, but again, what would be the point? EIRP of 36 - 25 dBi antenna - 1dB line loss = 11 dBm TPO. Are you really going to turn down the radio to 11 dBm? The manufacturers are not doing it because they know that they are creating giant antennas with massive wind low to permit you to break the regulations and incur an FCC visit. I suspect most WISPs have installations that are not in compliance. In fact, most public sector installations and energy companies are probably non compliant. ___ 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] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied with. ___ 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] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
With Cambium, we have connections that are stable at -82 dB. We have a backup backhaul for a tower that is about 5 miles. One ridge in between towers must have trees that interfere with freznel zone. Towers are 200'. Originally had a Cambium 900 with 6 foot single polarity yagis. It worked for emergencies in most situations (sometimes rain or snow would interfere). Put in UBNT with UBNT dual polarity yagis. Bandwidth available is slightly lower than the Cambium. From what I have experienced with UBNT 900, it works marginally better than 2.4 with tree penetration. Cambium 900 actually does work, even without freznel zone clearance at times. There are many situations it will not work, but it will reach 50% more of the households than UBNT. As for interference, I have mounted a Cambium 900 SM with the UBNT dual polarity with 40 foot horizontal separation without interference (for testing purposes, not real world implementation). It did work. GPS sync is better. I have two horizontal 900 omnis and 1 vertical omni mounted with less than 12 of horizontal separation on a tower using Cambium (no sectors will not work in this situation, and additional tower space is not available). It works. We have a tower currently with a 900 backhaul and 900 ap for distribution. Sync makes this possible. When we raise the tower another 100 feet this 900 backhaul will go away. 2.4/5.x do not work on this. A few 80+ foot trees (somewhere) are the problem Yes, the smartmeter usage of 900 spectrum is problematic around here and they seem to be a 919 mhz center channel. Using channels higher than 915 becomes more difficult. This is why I state that UBNT 900 is not good. Increasing signal by 15 dB is IMPOSSIBLE for our situations... well, legally that is. On 8/22/2013 10:14 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Almost every time someone has detailed their installations to me, there just isn't enough signal to do anything. They're getting a -76 and wondering why it doesn't work. Increase that another 15 dB and try again. The Canopy will work a little better because it requires less signal, but it also has nowhere near the same throughput, so they're really apples and oranges. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:20:24 AM *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas Ubnt 900 apparently has extremely poor nlos for 900 MHz. I've heard this a handful of people but haven't tried it myself. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied with. ___ 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 ___ 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] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
It is not the gear that is the issue. It is the regulations, unless your name is Progeny. The max TPO is 30 dBm and EIRP is 36. So, at 17 dBi antenna means you /should /only be running about 20 dBm out of your transceiver. The frequency regulations have a significant impact on throughput in the frequency ranges too. A 20 mHz channel is the entire 900 band while it is merely a channel in 2.4 or 5.x . I wish I could get out of 900 completely. Nothing else (we can use) can penetrate, refract, reflect like it does. But it just cannot deliver bandwidth to enough customers. So, stepping back a little, I must say that a cheap pair of UBNT units is worth testing in your area to see if it is sufficient. But unless you hang it on the tower for testing, your tests will be meaningless. As to which brand equipment will work better, it depends on your definition of better. You cannot get the throughput out of Cambium right now. You might be able to get it from UBNT. You can get sync with Cambium which allows for more APs without tight RF engineering. If your tower and customer distribution can support sectors, you may be in luck with UBNT. If you are going to support more than 20-30 people with omnis, you had better look at Cambium with GPS sync. I wish it was different. But that is our real world, non-vacuum test, experience. Hope that helps make a decision. If not, spend a few hundred bucks to test UBNT in your area. On 8/22/2013 4:13 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: The frequency that it operates has no impact on the throughput or the latency. Sure there's more noise in our 900 MHz band, but that's because of other users, not something native to that frequency. The bulk of the 900 MHz gear that we have just doesn't have sufficient gain, small enough beamwidth (kinda same thing), sufficient shielding. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Steve Barnes st...@pcswin.com *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:09:36 PM *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas But Mike that is the Rub. All things are never the same. 900 is dirty and Susceptible to so much noise and reflection because the signal does not die as quick. I understand the Theory but still have a hard time understanding how a slower carrier wave (900MHz) can carry the same Data as 5800MHz carrier wave but I know that it could in a vacuum. The issue is we don't live in a vacuum. *Steve Barnes* General Manager PCSWIN.com Howard LLC. *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett *Sent:* Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:28 PM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 900 will move the same amount as data as 2.4, 3.65 and 5 GHz with all else being the same. If your throughput is low, you have too little signal for the noise you're seeing. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Sam Tetherow tethe...@shwisp.net mailto:tethe...@shwisp.net *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:13:52 PM *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas I don't have anything to compare it to other than Tranzeo 900, but I have had decent results with it. It obviously won't push the throughput that 5G or even 2.4G will, even with the same channel sizes, but UBNT salvaged most of my 900 customers when the Tranzeo gear started running into problems. On 08/22/2013 09:03 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system was junk had a poor RF environment. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Erik Anderson erik.ander...@hocking.net mailto:erik.ander...@hocking.net *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these technologies have very low bandwidth. On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the UBNT solution but hate putting money
Re: [WISPA] Strange problem with Canopy 9000APC
I /have /seen similar things on Canopy 900. 1. I work with a lot of 900 APs. Test the radios that are down. Leave them running connected to the tower as an SM from a couple miles for a couple days. I bet they are just fine. But testing an AP as an SM is not a 100% guaranteed test (had one test fine then burn up after use on the tower as an AP for 90 minutes). 2. My gut says you are looking in the wrong spot. You need to be monitoring the amps being drawn by the radio. I think it is your CMM/CTM (assuming you are using one). Switch it to a different port. If not, swap the power supply. 3. Your radio is running too hot. -45 is not a good thing on 900! Set the AP to bring everyone down to (say) -65. You could be desensing the receiver. We have people connecting happily in the -80s. 4. The 2.4 is not the issue. We have some located 0 ft vertically offset and horizontally within 12 of 900 radios (plural) with them all on omnis. 4 feet of vertical separation is ample. On 6/13/2013 11:41 AM, David Hannum wrote: The S/N's on the radios are not really close. The second two that went bad came from a different shipment from the first batch. No visible signs of vandalism. Tower has locked cage around ladder. I can't imagine vandalism, however, you never rule out anything you can prove is out. Dave On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Coenraad Loubser coenr...@wish.org.za mailto:coenr...@wish.org.za wrote: Extreme bad luck - or perhaps not - are all the radios perhaps from a faulty batch? Vandalism - Is there any sort of access control or surveillance at the site? The first thoughts that spring to mind. On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 4:40 PM, David Hannum oujas...@gmail.com mailto:oujas...@gmail.com wrote: Never tried that before. We always use LPU's on the CAT-5 but I've never put one on the antenna lead. What kind of line loss does it cause? I don't see that in the Tech Specs. Also, does it come with a male antenna connector side? Dave Hannum On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Kurt Fankhauser li...@wavelinc.com mailto:li...@wavelinc.com wrote: Can you possibly put a polyphaser on the 9000APC? I use these: http://www.tessco.com/products/displayProductInfo.do?sku=531462eventPage=1 Kurt Fankhauser Wavelinc Communications P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 http://www.wavelinc.com tel. 419-562-6405 tel:419-562-6405 fax. 419-617-0110 tel:419-617-0110 *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *David Hannum *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:11 AM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Strange problem with Canopy 9000APC The first radio went bad on the first antenna. The second and third radios have gone bad on the second antenna. We'll probably swap the antenna again this afternoon on this one. Dave Hannum New Era Broadband On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Jason Bailey j284...@yahoo.com mailto:j284...@yahoo.com wrote: That's why I said antenna. It happened frequently after changing the antenna. --- On *Thu, 6/13/13, David Hannum /oujas...@gmail.com mailto:oujas...@gmail.com/* wrote: From: David Hannum oujas...@gmail.com mailto:oujas...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WISPA] Strange problem with Canopy 9000APC To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org Date: Thursday, June 13, 2013, 10:01 AM Moisture is not an issue. Good drip loops on both the antenna cable and CAT-5 Cables. We actually sealed the entry of the radio with mastic to be sure. The first radio lasted about 10 months. When it went, we first swapped antennas, thinking maybe a lightning strike damaged it (we've had the same effect on signal from bad antenna). That did nothing to help, so we next swapped the radio. Signal back. That lasted about four weeks. Swapped radio again, and signal back. Lasted about 12 hours this time. No visible damage to any of the radios. No moisture found inside. We don't have capability to test in-house. Will send to SWG or Wireless Units to have them take a look. Dave Hannum New Era Broadband On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com http://mc/compose?to=fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: On
Re: [WISPA] Strange problem with Canopy 9000APC
On 6/13/2013 1:38 PM, David Hannum wrote: He strongly urged me not to even worry about balancing. He says run everything wide open all the time - all SM's and all AP's. Now, I'm not disputing you - I don't know enough too. I'm just relaying what the Cambium engineer told me. No worries (about difference in theology). I am not trying to change anyone's mind, argue, or cause contention: just trying to help. Sorry if anyone thinks otherwise: that is why I am more of a lurker than poster. ALWAYS keep the AP at full power. Always, always, always. Well, I guess if you are using it for a PTP not PTMP and you are causing interference with other equipment then... anyway, if an AP is used as an AP, ALWAYS. But the SM... no. Through Cambium training, we were told differently: but I was not there for that training. Quite honestly, it makes a lot of sense to turn down a radio if the UPLINK strength at the AP is reading -30 to -55. Think about it for a minute from an RF prespective. Your receiver is receiving multiple transmissions. On some, it must increase the gain to make it sound right. On others, it must decrease the gain to make it sound right. These frequencies are preset to communicate (900 mhz band) and fine tuned to pick up the quiet sounds. Will the much stronger RF signal, over time, destroy the transceivers ability to hear the quiet sounds? Yes. That is what RF does, and why the microwave oven is so effective. There is an interesting study out there about the effects of long term RF exposure on the structural integrity of buildings. These units are not powerful and not going to damage buildings, but over time, they will damage sensitive electronics. Immediate problems, no. Long term, yes. Support for every other product on the market tells you to turn down a transmitter if receive is better than -50. A Canopy radio may be better than other radios, but we have repeatedly seen that the receiver desenses over time (way before the documented MTBF rate). For the SM, it does not matter if the receive is hot. It will never need to listen to the quiet sounds. The receiver can desense for that client and you will not have an impact. We test /every /radio before it is deployed/redeployed. This is due to RF sensitivity, and ones that perform worse are marked for use in locations with a strong signal only. Really, you should turn down the SM if the AP receive is that hot. 9 months is fast for burning out an AP. As I said in the first email, I am very suspicious that your problem is the power supply this time. But, I have seen the receivers on the APs get more and more desensitized (16 months is fastest) to the point the truck was rolling all the time for that AP, and a radio swap instantly fixed the numerous problems we were seeing. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
