Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end
Very well written Joe. As a company that’s NEVER given all you can eat for one low price I agree with you. Those who cause costs to go up should pay for those costs. Not taxpayer subsidies, not everyone paying higher costs than they should. Treat data like gas, tires, water, food, clothes etc. etc. etc. Pay for what you use, not what your neighbor uses. marlon From: Joe Fiero Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 10:15 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end I don’t comment all that often here, but very much pay attention to the voices of experience. On Net Neutrality, I have plenty to say. As with most of my FCC comments, what I filed 2 weeks ago with them went against the grain. I am a purist who has been in telecom since I repaired my first CB radio for a neighbor at the age of 14. I helped launch Metromedia’s cellular system in NY, a company I was a part owner in was the first acquisition of Fleetcall in NY City. Anyone as old as me would remember that Fleetcall became NexTel, and for the real youngsters, they were acquired by Sprint for what turned out to be a total write-off of $35 billion in December of 2004. I have been using unlicensed radio to link communications sites since long before it went digital. One thing my experience and observations have taught me is that nothing promotes innovation like free market. We need not look beyond our own industry to prove that. When no one would service 40% of America, we collectively built an industry that matured into a recognized and respected market sector. I was involved in the previous formation of an industry that is both parallel and intertwined with WISPS, that of home satellite television. Back in the mid 1970’s a band of tenacious, adventurous experimenters took handfuls of surplus junk and built home earth stations. In short order we went from being pirates and thieves to an established medium to reach rural America. It wasn’t long before the big money found us and pushed us out of the way. We went from a place where we could make a respectable income to being lackeys for DirecTV and DISH who generously paid us a few dollars to do the job and then gave us a big residual of 50 cents to about two dollars, on subscribers that ARPU of $100 or more. WISPs have been struggling to keep up with the Netflix demand since they went to Internet delivery in 2009. Systems big and small quickly found their choke points. And like in highway design, if you upgrade one intersection, the traffic jam just moves to the next unimproved intersection. The problem is, unlike the highway department, we don’t run on tax revenue. We have to charge subscribers for a service that is both fair and responsive to their needs. The SPRINT concept in the article is the most fair and responsible way to assure that our infrastructure can meet the demand, and that those creating the demand are the ones paying for it. The FCC needs to stop cow-towing to the illiterate public who are still touting that they need to “protect the FREE Internet”. Who gets this for free? If you are in a coffee shop, the proprietor is paying for it. Public Wi-Fi is advertising or tax subsidized. Do we get power, water, heating for free? Ten years ago we projected a mass movement from the PSTN to VoIP. Even the industry experts never predicted a loss of 48% of copper lines in 10 years. What was built up over a century dissipated in the blink of an eye. We are again on the cusp of a shift in the paradigm that will see cable and satellite users shift to Internet based delivery on any device they desire. The same dramatic reduction witnessed in copper phone lines awaits the traditional Multichannel marketplace. And along with the big guns, we are on the front line. We will be expected to deliver copious amounts of data to subscribers as they stream HD video and music to multiple devices in their homes and offices. We, the WISP industry, need to step up our game if we are going to remain part of this. We are going to have to emulate the cellular industry with frequency reuse like we never imagined. We are going to have to replace our older radios with ones that can deliver the required bandwidth, and our backhauls are going to need enough capacity to handle all this. But how do we justify the cost, who do we charge, and how do we do it? The early agreement with Verizon and Netflix that received the FCC’s blessing was never going to benefit everyone. How long would it take for you and I to get Netflix to pay for our “fast lane”? My guess was never. Netflix, Hulu, and the like have created a business model where they have no cost to deliver a product to their users. They are using the infrastructure built and paid for by others, then stirring up the ignorant masses to complain to the FCC about the free Internet. I have learned the
Re: [WISPA] Air Force Base / KSC Launch RFI Question
I’d probably find out how long they need the “line clear”. My guess is that a space launch will only need the ground based radar running for a few minutes to a half hour (doesn’t take long to get into space). If they are willing to work out a specific and reasonable time frame I’d let my customers know what the situation is and shut down the ap’s for that time. I’d also be asking the USAF what they plan to do if they ever get attacked. If the devices in the area so easily jam the systems I’m not sure what it’s national defense usefulness is in the first place . marlon From: Scott Carullo Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 9:01 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Air Force Base / KSC Launch RFI Question Good morning, We operate between two local Air Force bases and near KSC as well. We were notified recently that the AFB has resorted to using an older radar system that was previously retired due to the newer range radar system catching fire or something to that effect. During the two months or so the repairs are expected to take we have had several space launches scheduled during this window from CCAFS / KSC. The USAF has fired up the old radar and has recently contacted us asking about equipment we have in the area at customer premises. I asked the frequency coordinator what freq their radar uses he said the center freq was 5735 and that it had a very wide bandwidth of like 100 Mhz basically taking the whole ISM/UNII bands worth of spectrum in 5Ghz. So any way to the point... When the USAF shows up and says hey, I see you are using FCC approved equipment in accordance to the FCC spectrum rules the equipment was designed to operate in on freq 5765Mhz - but I need you to turn it off to see if its your equipment we are seeing - and if it is please change freq preferably below 5600 MHz or above 5850 MHz (actual quoted request). Obviously we can't accommodate their request for several reasons,most notably because the equipment nor the FCC allows it. I'm just curious if any of you have had anything like this happen and what your response was / would be. I try to be a nice neighbor and work with them any way possible but them trying to shut down the whole 5Ghz non-licensed upper band all our equipment uses (including every other cable and wireline providers wifi 5Ghz equipment in the county) to work their range RFI issues is a bit much and ultimately unattainable within the 3 days they have left prior to launch, IMO. Any insight or suggestions you smart fellers have would be appreciated. I am particularly interested in those more intimate with FCC rules regarding this situation. Do I have to comply? Do they have legal justification to just say - turn it off... etc Thanks... I appreciate your time in responding. Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 ___ 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] pay per use billing
We do usage based billing. Have since day one. Our basic plan is 25 gigs for $40ish (slightly different in different towns). That’s good enough for over 90% of our customer base. We have lost a lot of customers though (20ish%) over the last two years. We’ve gained more than we’ve lost, but it’s still frustrating to loose so many. The good news is that our competitor’s customers are starting to call us about the crappy service they are getting! The average home has 2 tv’s and ipads and game systems that are online. All watching different programs. Often streaming at the same time. The days of unlimited unrestricted usage are just not here yet. The technology isn’t there and the costs in many (most?) areas are certainly not there. We have no speed tiers. It’s as fast as I can make it go. I have customers on wireless that get over 20 megs, both ways. A recent test at a fiber customer’s location had them getting over 70 megs, both ways. Pretty cool stuff. If things keep going like it looks like they are going the only people that offer unlimited access out here will be the government funded ones. And even they are giving rotten overloaded service that’s much slower than ours. One of the WISPs next door is looking at going back to usage based. marlon From: Sam Tetherow Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] pay per use billing We don't do usage based, for something like thermostats I would set them to 128k/128k or 512k/512k and charge them $20ish. The camera's I would charge them full rate because they are going to use a lot of bandwidth depending on how often they are view them. On 05/06/2014 03:03 PM, wi...@mncomm.com wrote: I am starting to get hit by part time users going to their fishing house on the weekends. I also have customers that were on seasonal plans where their internet was shut down while they were gone, however they needed an active connection for remote access to thermostats and cameras. So what’s an average price for selling usage based service? We currently do not offer it now, but I may want to try it out on these instances 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] Outsourced email
We use tucows. Great support, good service. The antispam isn’t as good as postini was but the rest of it has been really nice. marlon From: Clay Stewart Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 8:40 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Outsourced email All our customers use their own email... turned off Exchange Servers 4 years ago. Not one single new customer EVER asks for email. We use GMail Business for everything at office. On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:37 AM, ~NGL~ n...@ngl.net wrote: I know this was just a topic on this list, but I lost all of the contact information regarding Google or other companies. Please help if you have a contact. 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 -- -- SCS Clay Stewart CEO, Tye River Farms, Inc., DBA Stewart Computer Services 434.263.6363 O 434.942.6510 C cstew...@stewartcomputerservices.com “We Keep You Up and Running” Wireless Broadband Programming Network Services ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless flag.gif___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Odd Speed Results
Look at a difference in rssi levels at each end. I've seen some of the radios (xr2 and xr5 cards) go weak either on the tx or rx side. That's a hard one to catch. Also if it's only 2.4 miles you might have to much power going to them and picking up some multipath. Try dropping the power down a little bit and see what happens. marlon -Original Message- From: Scott Reed Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 6:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Odd Speed Results I have a link using 2 PowerBridges that is about 2.4 miles. I can get 56M TCP across the link using the UBNT speed test. I have several MTs on one side of the link and a RouterMaxx running MT on the other side of the link. The best I can get between the MTs is 10M. The processors are at 30% on each side. I am at a total loss as to why I get the radically different speeds. I can not anything that looks odd. The link used to work really well. Not sure when this issue started, but I am thinking it may be getting progressively worse. Any idea what I should be looking for? -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 Toll-free (855) 231-6239 ___ 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
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 Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 9:16 AM To: WISPA General List 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
Re: [WISPA] Do i have enough separation
Also, hard to tell from the picture but is the omni weather proofed? marlon From: Mark Spring Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Do i have enough separation Is the omni at least a different frequency? Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do...maybe they were short on cat5 each time they put in a new circuit..? 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 Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: I wasn't sure if you were immediately assuming that install would never work. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 3:46 PM, heith petersen wi...@mncomm.com wrote: Its all M5. I was being sarcastic, but for Luthman's sake I don’t know the font for sarcasm. -Original Message- From: Matt Hoppes Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 2:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Do i have enough separation The answer to your question lies in what you are doing what frequencies are these devices? Matt Hoppes Director of Information Technology Indigo Wireless +1 (570) 723-7312 On 3/14/14, 3:11 PM, heith petersen wrote: So I had my new tech go on this grain leg to troubleshoot a poor through put situation. Then he told me what he saw and sent me a picture. This was done by a former contractor 3 hours away from me. The top of this grain leg is only 20x20 foot square. Weird thing is it has been working well for 2 years and now has been causing issues. 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 ___ 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] 8x8 antenna for ubnt?? pic attached
I wonder if that’s one of the old Gabriel multi sector units? I think they called it the M-beam. marlon From: Gino Villarini Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 6:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 8x8 antenna for ubnt?? pic attached Yes its dwnld from FB… it appears that the lower radios are feeding 2 small UBNT sector inside the big sector enclosure, by the positioning of the nuts on the lower half of the Sector it seems like the big sector has been modified… frankentenna Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Sunday, March 16, 2014 9:27 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 8x8 antenna for ubnt?? pic attached At the bottom of the sector it seem sto have the model number information, but the version I got doesn't let me zoom in enough. Judging by the filename, is this a download off of FaceBook? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:19:30 AM Subject: [WISPA] 8x8 antenna for ubnt?? pic attached I think one of the many local wisps popping here are getting very creative Anyone can ID this sector? Im thinking its a Mobile Carrier antenna that they are reusing… but what band? Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr ___ 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] Outsourced Server and mail hosting
We are using tucows/opensrs. The antispam isn’t as good as Postini was. But we fired Postini/Google when I found out that they spy on the customer’s communications. Tucows doesn’t. marlon From: Josh Bowsher Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 2:49 PM To: mailto:wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Outsourced Server and mail hosting Who is everyone using for outsourced server hosting/management (Windows or Linux Servers running SQL, Radius, Billing software) and hosted mail service? All input is appreciated. Regards, Joshua S. Bowsher Director of Internet Services Midwaynet.net Midway Electronics NWIIS a division of MidwayNet, LLC 1250 N McKinley Ave Rensselaer, IN 47978 Office 219-866-7946 ext: 212 Cell 219-863-0678 www.midwaynet.net jbows...@midwaynet.net This e-mail, including all attachments may contain CONFIDENTIAL information and is meant solely for the intended recipient. It contains controlled, privileged, or proprietary information that is protected under applicable law and shall not be disclosed to any unauthorized third party. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, action, disclosure, distribution, or reproduction of any information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is strictly PROHIBITED. If you received this e-mail in error, please reply to the sender immediately, and delete all copies of this e-mail and attachments without disclosing the contents. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the exact position of MidwayNet, LLC, Midway Electronics, or NWIIS a division of MidwayNet. ___ 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] Fw: FW:
This is the only cantenna that I’ve ever heard of http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/how-to-make-a-wifi-antenna-out-of-a-pringles-can-nb/ marlon From: heith petersen Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 4:43 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Fw: FW: I had a customer cancel our service a few weeks ago in a town an hour away from me. My billing lady got the impression that she was going to use her 4G service. She lives out of town a mile where we are the only WISP or service around, aside from satellite or cell service. Our equipment was laying by her house as she was away for the day when we were there, but stated that the new equipment was mounted in our old spot. So my tech took this picture and it said Cantenna on the bottom of it. Its not like the Cantenna I have seen in the past. I am real positive that I do not have another WISP in the area. Do some WISPS use these devices? The closest business is a John Deere dealership, and I am fairly certain their IT would not allow external usage of their network, and all of the houses in the area use our service. Anyways just curious if any one had any ideas of what they could be using this for. I have had other customers cheat WiFi from their neighbors with different Cantennas, but I would use a UBNT device to re-distribute the service, if that’s whats going on thanks heith From: 6052801...@mms.att.net Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:32 PM To: he...@mncomm.com Subject: FW: ___ 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] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?
Patrick, how the heck are ya? marlon From: Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 10:01 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies? Amen. Preach it Brother Marlon. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 10, 2014, at 12:19, Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) o...@odessaoffice.com wrote: I’m with Forrest here. Back in the “back ol’ days” of everyone running amps (we had to back then in many cases) some vendors loved to sell more power. More power means faster service at longer ranges right? WRONG. Carrier to interference level is where your speed and distance comes from. The high power systems, as Forrest says, cause the radios to produce much more *detectable* power outside their main band. That power outside the main band causes the interference. It was always a struggle, but when I used to do interference I convinced many WISPs that LOWER powers would actually improve the performance of their networks. It was nearly 100% true. In the rare cases when lower power levels didn’t work it was because people were trying to use higher powers to over-ride physics and go through trees, buildings etc. One very important note here. If you do try lower power levels you’ll have to lower ALL of the devices back down to reasonable levels (RSSI should be between –65 and –75 for most modern radios to perform their best, –55 will work but see the above notes about self inflicted interference). A quick check is to shut down all of your AP’s in an area and see what the noise goes to. Oh yeah, very few radios really report accurate interference information. If you are checking those levels via anything other than a real spectrum analyzer you’ll likely find out that there are also other things happening in your area. Call if you’d like and we can talk this out a bit more. 509.988.0260 laters, marlon From: Forrest Christian (List Account) Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 9:53 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies? I'm going to agree with others... Running outside legal limits doesn't look good to the FCC, and it sounds like you are definitely running outside the limits since you are whining about the ability to run your radios in a mode which seems to have no use than to exceed the limits. I will also add that if you're running all your radios hotter than they should be that your nose floor problem is most likely self inflicted. My experience over the years is that radios are designed to run at a specific tx power and if you're exceeding it you get a lot of out of channel bleed over. Even if the radios don't do this you are introducing far more rf than is likely needed causing an overall rising of the noise floor. Please don't interpret everyone's ire incorrectly. We've just all either dealt with an operator like you are now or have been an operator like you are now. And right now we're trying to gain credibility with the FCC which is hard to do when some operators are flagrantly breaking the rules. Which makes us a bit grumpy. I'm sure some of your neighbors out there would love to help you better understand what you are doing to yourself and help you improve your operations which will in turn improve your quality of service. Heck, I'd drive over there for a weekend if my schedule wasn't so packed. In any case please ask for help in appropriate spots and let us help you reap the rewards of a correctly and legally operating network. On Feb 8, 2014 4:49 PM, Art Stephens asteph...@ptera.com wrote: Recent events make me wonder if the FCC is trying to muscle wisps out of these frequencies. Since we are primarily Ubiquiti equipment I can only speak from that platform. First the latest firmware update removes compliance test which for about 40% of our equipment deployed would render them unusable since 5735 - 5840 runs at - 50dBm or higher noise levels in our area, Second is new product released only supports 5735 - 5840. Seems like DFS is such a pain that manufacturers do not want to mess with it. Case in point the new NanoBeam M series only support 5725-5850 for USA. Worldwide version which we are not allowed to buy or deploy supports 5170-5875. Seems the only alternative is to go with licensed P2MP which makes more money for the FCC and drives the cost of wireless internet up for both wisps and consumers. -- Arthur Stephens Senior Networking Technician Ptera Inc. PO Box 135 24001 E Mission Suite 50 Liberty Lake, WA 99019 509-927-7837 ptera.com facebook.com/PteraInc | twitter.com/Ptera - This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally
Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?
Different band. Different designs. Different equipment. Same screwups.. marlon From: Blair Davis Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 12:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies? I don't even know of amps for 5GHz? I thought this was mainly about antenna gain... -- On 2/10/2014 3:14 PM, D. Ryan Spott wrote: I would be happy to drive out there to give you a hand Arthur. ryan On 2/10/14 9:19 AM, Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) wrote: I’m with Forrest here. Back in the “back ol’ days” of everyone running amps (we had to back then in many cases) some vendors loved to sell more power. More power means faster service at longer ranges right? WRONG. Carrier to interference level is where your speed and distance comes from. The high power systems, as Forrest says, cause the radios to produce much more *detectable* power outside their main band. That power outside the main band causes the interference. It was always a struggle, but when I used to do interference I convinced many WISPs that LOWER powers would actually improve the performance of their networks. It was nearly 100% true. In the rare cases when lower power levels didn’t work it was because people were trying to use higher powers to over-ride physics and go through trees, buildings etc. One very important note here. If you do try lower power levels you’ll have to lower ALL of the devices back down to reasonable levels (RSSI should be between –65 and –75 for most modern radios to perform their best, –55 will work but see the above notes about self inflicted interference). A quick check is to shut down all of your AP’s in an area and see what the noise goes to. Oh yeah, very few radios really report accurate interference information. If you are checking those levels via anything other than a real spectrum analyzer you’ll likely find out that there are also other things happening in your area. Call if you’d like and we can talk this out a bit more. 509.988.0260 laters, marlon From: Forrest Christian (List Account) Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 9:53 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies? I'm going to agree with others... Running outside legal limits doesn't look good to the FCC, and it sounds like you are definitely running outside the limits since you are whining about the ability to run your radios in a mode which seems to have no use than to exceed the limits. I will also add that if you're running all your radios hotter than they should be that your nose floor problem is most likely self inflicted. My experience over the years is that radios are designed to run at a specific tx power and if you're exceeding it you get a lot of out of channel bleed over. Even if the radios don't do this you are introducing far more rf than is likely needed causing an overall rising of the noise floor. Please don't interpret everyone's ire incorrectly. We've just all either dealt with an operator like you are now or have been an operator like you are now. And right now we're trying to gain credibility with the FCC which is hard to do when some operators are flagrantly breaking the rules. Which makes us a bit grumpy. I'm sure some of your neighbors out there would love to help you better understand what you are doing to yourself and help you improve your operations which will in turn improve your quality of service. Heck, I'd drive over there for a weekend if my schedule wasn't so packed. In any case please ask for help in appropriate spots and let us help you reap the rewards of a correctly and legally operating network. On Feb 8, 2014 4:49 PM, Art Stephens asteph...@ptera.com wrote: Recent events make me wonder if the FCC is trying to muscle wisps out of these frequencies. Since we are primarily Ubiquiti equipment I can only speak from that platform. First the latest firmware update removes compliance test which for about 40% of our equipment deployed would render them unusable since 5735 - 5840 runs at - 50dBm or higher noise levels in our area, Second is new product released only supports 5735 - 5840. Seems like DFS is such a pain that manufacturers do not want to mess with it. Case in point the new NanoBeam M series only support 5725-5850 for USA. Worldwide version which we are not allowed to buy or deploy supports 5170-5875. Seems the only alternative is to go with licensed P2MP which makes more money for the FCC and drives the cost of wireless internet up for both wisps and consumers. -- Arthur Stephens Senior Networking Technician Ptera Inc. PO Box 135 24001 E Mission Suite 50 Liberty Lake, WA 99019 509-927-7837 ptera.com
Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?
I’m with Forrest here. Back in the “back ol’ days” of everyone running amps (we had to back then in many cases) some vendors loved to sell more power. More power means faster service at longer ranges right? WRONG. Carrier to interference level is where your speed and distance comes from. The high power systems, as Forrest says, cause the radios to produce much more *detectable* power outside their main band. That power outside the main band causes the interference. It was always a struggle, but when I used to do interference I convinced many WISPs that LOWER powers would actually improve the performance of their networks. It was nearly 100% true. In the rare cases when lower power levels didn’t work it was because people were trying to use higher powers to over-ride physics and go through trees, buildings etc. One very important note here. If you do try lower power levels you’ll have to lower ALL of the devices back down to reasonable levels (RSSI should be between –65 and –75 for most modern radios to perform their best, –55 will work but see the above notes about self inflicted interference). A quick check is to shut down all of your AP’s in an area and see what the noise goes to. Oh yeah, very few radios really report accurate interference information. If you are checking those levels via anything other than a real spectrum analyzer you’ll likely find out that there are also other things happening in your area. Call if you’d like and we can talk this out a bit more. 509.988.0260 laters, marlon From: Forrest Christian (List Account) Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 9:53 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies? I'm going to agree with others... Running outside legal limits doesn't look good to the FCC, and it sounds like you are definitely running outside the limits since you are whining about the ability to run your radios in a mode which seems to have no use than to exceed the limits. I will also add that if you're running all your radios hotter than they should be that your nose floor problem is most likely self inflicted. My experience over the years is that radios are designed to run at a specific tx power and if you're exceeding it you get a lot of out of channel bleed over. Even if the radios don't do this you are introducing far more rf than is likely needed causing an overall rising of the noise floor. Please don't interpret everyone's ire incorrectly. We've just all either dealt with an operator like you are now or have been an operator like you are now. And right now we're trying to gain credibility with the FCC which is hard to do when some operators are flagrantly breaking the rules. Which makes us a bit grumpy. I'm sure some of your neighbors out there would love to help you better understand what you are doing to yourself and help you improve your operations which will in turn improve your quality of service. Heck, I'd drive over there for a weekend if my schedule wasn't so packed. In any case please ask for help in appropriate spots and let us help you reap the rewards of a correctly and legally operating network. On Feb 8, 2014 4:49 PM, Art Stephens asteph...@ptera.com wrote: Recent events make me wonder if the FCC is trying to muscle wisps out of these frequencies. Since we are primarily Ubiquiti equipment I can only speak from that platform. First the latest firmware update removes compliance test which for about 40% of our equipment deployed would render them unusable since 5735 - 5840 runs at - 50dBm or higher noise levels in our area, Second is new product released only supports 5735 - 5840. Seems like DFS is such a pain that manufacturers do not want to mess with it. Case in point the new NanoBeam M series only support 5725-5850 for USA. Worldwide version which we are not allowed to buy or deploy supports 5170-5875. Seems the only alternative is to go with licensed P2MP which makes more money for the FCC and drives the cost of wireless internet up for both wisps and consumers. -- Arthur Stephens Senior Networking Technician Ptera Inc. PO Box 135 24001 E Mission Suite 50 Liberty Lake, WA 99019 509-927-7837 ptera.com facebook.com/PteraInc | twitter.com/Ptera - This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box
Hi Kevin, Not shielded. Apryl at my office would know the part number. We get it from Streakwave. I’ll never use another kind of cable unless they change this one. marlon From: Kevin Owen Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 9:43 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box Marlon, Is the Shireen Dry Gel cable also shielded? Do you have a part/product # for it? Thanks, Kevin From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 4:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box Have you tried the Shireen dry gel? I’m addicted. Stays dry and easy to work with until it gets wet. IF there’s a problem that allows liquid into the cable it self seals the hole. Pretty cool stuff. I do wish they had a better packaging system. I really miss the “rabbit pull” mechanism that my indoor cable uses. marlon From: Scott Reed Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 4:31 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box Shireen, unshield, no gel for installations. Shireen, shielded, no gel for towers. On 1/22/2014 9:20 PM, timothy steele wrote: I've used shireen cable I will +1 that's good cable.. I've also heard of guys making there own reusable spindle holder box so you can use same cable for towers and installs so there is that option — Sent from Mailbox for iPhone On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com wrote: UBNT toughcable pro/carrier and/or Shireen is all we use Josh Reynolds :: Chief Information Officer :: SPITwSPOTS :: Ubiquiti Certified AirMax Trainer :: On 01/22/2014 04:30 PM, heith petersen wrote: Just looking for what others are using for boxed cable shielded that simple or easy for customer installs. We use a certain cable now, buts on rolls, which is ideal for towers, but a pain in the ass for installs. I heard UBNT stuff is better, but the partners are upset from the BS from earlier go arounds thanks heith ___Wireless mailing listWireless@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___Wireless mailing listWireless@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7024 - Release Date: 01/22/14 -- Scott ReedOwnerNewWays Networking, LLCWireless NetworkingNetwork Design, Installation and AdministrationMikrotik Advanced Certifiedwww.nwwnet.net(765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 Toll-free (855) 231-6239 ___ 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] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box
That says gel filled. the other is a dry “gel”. marlon From: Kevin Owen Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 10:28 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box Here is the product I ordered after being pointed there by Scott. Outdoor CAT5e FTP Shielded - Gel Filled - Outer Jacket - 1000ft Spool DC-1041 Kevin From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Reynolds Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 10:23 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box INTERESTING! I didn't know shireen made a shielded version. That's one reason we've only used the d-gel for very certain things. It's not listed on our primary vendor's site (streakwave). Thanks for the find/info! Josh Reynolds :: Chief Information Officer :: SPITwSPOTS :: Ubiquiti Certified AirMax Trainer :: On 01/24/2014 08:48 AM, Scott Reed wrote: You can get it either way, shielded or not. Compare them here: https://www.shireeninc.com/osc/cables/cat5e.html On 1/24/2014 12:43 PM, Kevin Owen wrote: Marlon, Is the Shireen Dry Gel cable also shielded? Do you have a part/product # for it? Thanks, Kevin From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 4:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box Have you tried the Shireen dry gel? I’m addicted. Stays dry and easy to work with until it gets wet. IF there’s a problem that allows liquid into the cable it self seals the hole. Pretty cool stuff. I do wish they had a better packaging system. I really miss the “rabbit pull” mechanism that my indoor cable uses. marlon From: Scott Reed Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 4:31 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box Shireen, unshield, no gel for installations. Shireen, shielded, no gel for towers. On 1/22/2014 9:20 PM, timothy steele wrote: I've used shireen cable I will +1 that's good cable.. I've also heard of guys making there own reusable spindle holder box so you can use same cable for towers and installs so there is that option — Sent from Mailbox for iPhone On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com wrote: UBNT toughcable pro/carrier and/or Shireen is all we use Josh Reynolds :: Chief Information Officer :: SPITwSPOTS :: Ubiquiti Certified AirMax Trainer :: On 01/22/2014 04:30 PM, heith petersen wrote: Just looking for what others are using for boxed cable shielded that simple or easy for customer installs. We use a certain cable now, buts on rolls, which is ideal for towers, but a pain in the ass for installs. I heard UBNT stuff is better, but the partners are upset from the BS from earlier go arounds thanks heith ___Wireless mailing listWireless@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___Wireless mailing listWireless@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7024 - Release Date: 01/22/14 -- Scott ReedOwnerNewWays Networking, LLCWireless NetworkingNetwork Design, Installation and AdministrationMikrotik Advanced Certifiedwww.nwwnet.net(765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 Toll-free (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___Wireless mailing listWireless@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7030 - Release Date: 01/24/14 -- Scott ReedOwnerNewWays Networking, LLCWireless NetworkingNetwork Design, Installation and AdministrationMikrotik Advanced Certifiedwww.nwwnet.net(765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 Toll-free (855) 231-6239 ___Wireless mailing listWireless@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box
Have you tried the Shireen dry gel? I’m addicted. Stays dry and easy to work with until it gets wet. IF there’s a problem that allows liquid into the cable it self seals the hole. Pretty cool stuff. I do wish they had a better packaging system. I really miss the “rabbit pull” mechanism that my indoor cable uses. marlon From: Scott Reed Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 4:31 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box Shireen, unshield, no gel for installations. Shireen, shielded, no gel for towers. On 1/22/2014 9:20 PM, timothy steele wrote: I've used shireen cable I will +1 that's good cable.. I've also heard of guys making there own reusable spindle holder box so you can use same cable for towers and installs so there is that option — Sent from Mailbox for iPhone On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com wrote: UBNT toughcable pro/carrier and/or Shireen is all we use Josh Reynolds :: Chief Information Officer :: SPITwSPOTS :: Ubiquiti Certified AirMax Trainer :: On 01/22/2014 04:30 PM, heith petersen wrote: Just looking for what others are using for boxed cable shielded that simple or easy for customer installs. We use a certain cable now, buts on rolls, which is ideal for towers, but a pain in the ass for installs. I heard UBNT stuff is better, but the partners are upset from the BS from earlier go arounds 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 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7024 - Release Date: 01/22/14 -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 Toll-free (855) 231-6239 ___ 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] Looking for a Traveling WISP
that sounds fun. I actually already have my motorhome set up to do just that. 30’ mast, solar and gen set power. Lots of big batteries etc. Wish I could help you on this. Any reason you don’t want to just work with wisps that are in the areas you need to cover? marlon From: Ian Framson Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 7:50 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Looking for a Traveling WISP Hi Wisps, I hope everyone is doing well and looking forward to the holidays. I have a unique need, here goes: I am looking for a Wisp without a local market - someone who is willing to travel and negotiate/setup temporary wireless shots for us all over the U.S. As background, my company provides IT consulting services for events, including bandwidth procurement, temporary circuits, WiFi, and IT labor. Anyone come to mind you can recommend? Many thanks, Ian Framson Co-founder www.tradeshowinternet.com i...@tradeshowinternet.com (866) 385-1504 x701 (818) 590-7475 mobile (415) 704-3153 fax Connect With Us ___ 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] Comcast asking FCC for more 5GHz spectrum.
What really needs to happen is for all the ding bat indoor guys to start using the 5.1 ghz indoor only band instead of the 5.8 band! They already have dedicated spectrum and are fools for not using it. marlon From: Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:04 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Comcast asking FCC for more 5GHz spectrum. Not that it'll cure it, but we'll have to step up shielding, isolation, antenna gain, better F/B, better side lobe suppression, etc. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 5:03:00 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Comcast asking FCC for more 5GHz spectrum. Yeah, won't matter either way with a 5Ghz AP on every street corner. Already seeing that in our areas do a wireless scan and you see 354 5Ghz APs now in addition to the 2Ghz ones (they run dual band APs now). Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 From: Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.com Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 5:49 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Comcast asking FCC for more 5GHz spectrum. What could go wrong with Comcast taking up yet more 5GHz of spectrum...[/sarcasm off] On 11/14/2013 01:40 PM, ralph wrote: I hope the links at the bottom come through. --- Comcast needs the FCC to open up the 5 GHz spectrum band to power next-generation Wi-Fi services that could allow it to deliver wireless broadband at speeds of up to 1 Gbps, SVP of Business Development Tom Nagel testified at a House Energy and Commerce hearing on Wednesday. Nagel disclosed in his prepared testimony that Comcast has expanded the number of Wi-Fi access points for Xfinity high-speed Internet customers to 350,000. The nation's largest cable MSO also began deploying wireless gateways from Cisco earlier this year that Comcast has said may be able to power millions of neighborhood hotspots. While Comcast already is already using the 5 GHz band, Nagel said it needs more of the unlicensed spectrum to meet demand from subscribers for Wi-Fi. It faces potential opposition from Toyota and other automobile manufacturers who want to use the 5 GHz band to deliver next-generation connected car applications, including applications that would warn drivers of collision threats. Toyota principal researcher John Kenney raised concerns about possible interference from Wi-Fi services at Wednesday's hearing. We have been actively engaged with the Wi-Fi community and other stakeholders who are exploring possible sharing solutions that will alleviate any risk of harmful interference from unlicensed devices. But we're not there yet and it's going to take a bit more time to see if we can get there, Kenney said in his prepared testimony. For more: - see Nagel's prepared testimony (.pdf) - see Kenney's prepared testimony (.pdf) - see Comcast blog post - Broadcasting Cable has this story ___ 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] Comcast asking FCC for more 5GHz spectrum.
The other good thing is that they will (hopefully) keep using wifi where we can use polling mechanisms easier today so we *should* be more protected against the interference than we used to be with older 2.4 gig gear. marlon From: Scott Carullo Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:52 PM To: Matt Hoppes ; sc...@brevardwireless.com ; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Comcast asking FCC for more 5GHz spectrum. Hard to tell, noise floor is noise floor which keeps creeping up - we all know things work better when its quiet. This used to worry me a lot when I saw it coming, but then I realized it was already there and I had no idea until I just happened to scan on some radios (I don't usually install the stuff). I'm not worried any more, if its not one thing it will be another any way. Thats what gives us the edge every day, flexibility. We will work around it, we always do. I figure a high gain antenna on a tower with a good directional CPE will continue to work fine. Their omni low gain antenna can't compete with a 20-30db directional one. Still sucks though, you drive down the street and see one after another running 5Ghz just knowing there probably isn't 3 connections in the whole city to them Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 From: Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 6:43 PM To: sc...@brevardwireless.com sc...@brevardwireless.com, WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Comcast asking FCC for more 5GHz spectrum. Are you seeing any impact from them? On Nov 14, 2013, at 18:03, Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.com wrote: Yeah, won't matter either way with a 5Ghz AP on every street corner. Already seeing that in our areas do a wireless scan and you see 354 5Ghz APs now in addition to the 2Ghz ones (they run dual band APs now). Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 -- From: Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.com Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 5:49 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Comcast asking FCC for more 5GHz spectrum. What could go wrong with Comcast taking up yet more 5GHz of spectrum...[/sarcasm off] On 11/14/2013 01:40 PM, ralph wrote: I hope the links at the bottom come through. --- Comcast needs the FCC to open up the 5 GHz spectrum band to power next-generation Wi-Fi services that could allow it to deliver wireless broadband at speeds of up to 1 Gbps, SVP of Business Development Tom Nagel testified at a House Energy and Commerce hearing on Wednesday. Nagel disclosed in his prepared testimony that Comcast has expanded the number of Wi-Fi access points for Xfinity high-speed Internet customers to 350,000. The nation's largest cable MSO also began deploying wireless gateways from Cisco earlier this year that Comcast has said may be able to power millions of neighborhood hotspots. While Comcast already is already using the 5 GHz band, Nagel said it needs more of the unlicensed spectrum to meet demand from subscribers for Wi-Fi. It faces potential opposition from Toyota and other automobile manufacturers who want to use the 5 GHz band to deliver next-generation connected car applications, including applications that would warn drivers of collision threats. Toyota principal researcher John Kenney raised concerns about possible interference from Wi-Fi services at Wednesday's hearing. We have been actively engaged with the Wi-Fi community and other stakeholders who are exploring possible sharing solutions that will alleviate any risk of harmful interference from unlicensed devices. But we're not there yet and it's going to take a bit more time to see if we can get there, Kenney said in his prepared testimony. For more: - see Nagel's prepared testimony (.pdf) - see Kenney's prepared testimony (.pdf) - see Comcast blog post - Broadcasting Cable has this story ___ 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] Comcast asking FCC for more 5GHz spectrum.
WiFi has the csmak mechanism as part of the protocol. Basically you have to listen for clear air before you can talk. If they air isn’t clear you don’t transmit. With a poling mechanism you transmit no matter what, if there’s no acknowledgment you transmit again, no matter what. WiFi is inherently susceptible to interference issues. That’s how it is so nicely co-locateable but it’s also bad for high noise environments. The idea that anyone will put hundreds or thousands of units on the street and do even an OK job of servicing the consumers with today’s protocol is funny to me. It works now, but so did muni wifi not that long ago. This too shall pass marlon From: Matt Hoppes Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 12:32 PM To: WISPA General List Cc: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Comcast asking FCC for more 5GHz spectrum. ? On Nov 27, 2013, at 14:51, Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) o...@odessaoffice.com wrote: The other good thing is that they will (hopefully) keep using wifi where we can use polling mechanisms easier today so we *should* be more protected against the interference than we used to be with older 2.4 gig gear. marlon From: Scott Carullo Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:52 PM To: Matt Hoppes ; sc...@brevardwireless.com ; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Comcast asking FCC for more 5GHz spectrum. Hard to tell, noise floor is noise floor which keeps creeping up - we all know things work better when its quiet. This used to worry me a lot when I saw it coming, but then I realized it was already there and I had no idea until I just happened to scan on some radios (I don't usually install the stuff). I'm not worried any more, if its not one thing it will be another any way. Thats what gives us the edge every day, flexibility. We will work around it, we always do. I figure a high gain antenna on a tower with a good directional CPE will continue to work fine. Their omni low gain antenna can't compete with a 20-30db directional one. Still sucks though, you drive down the street and see one after another running 5Ghz just knowing there probably isn't 3 connections in the whole city to them Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 -- From: Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 6:43 PM To: sc...@brevardwireless.com sc...@brevardwireless.com, WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Comcast asking FCC for more 5GHz spectrum. Are you seeing any impact from them? On Nov 14, 2013, at 18:03, Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.com wrote: Yeah, won't matter either way with a 5Ghz AP on every street corner. Already seeing that in our areas do a wireless scan and you see 354 5Ghz APs now in addition to the 2Ghz ones (they run dual band APs now). Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 From: Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.com Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 5:49 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Comcast asking FCC for more 5GHz spectrum. What could go wrong with Comcast taking up yet more 5GHz of spectrum...[/sarcasm off] On 11/14/2013 01:40 PM, ralph wrote: I hope the links at the bottom come through. --- Comcast needs the FCC to open up the 5 GHz spectrum band to power next-generation Wi-Fi services that could allow it to deliver wireless broadband at speeds of up to 1 Gbps, SVP of Business Development Tom Nagel testified at a House Energy and Commerce hearing on Wednesday. Nagel disclosed in his prepared testimony that Comcast has expanded the number of Wi-Fi access points for Xfinity high-speed Internet customers to 350,000. The nation's largest cable MSO also began deploying wireless gateways from Cisco earlier this year that Comcast has said may be able to power millions of neighborhood hotspots. While Comcast already is already using the 5 GHz band, Nagel said it needs more of the unlicensed spectrum to meet demand from subscribers for Wi-Fi. It faces potential opposition from Toyota and other automobile manufacturers who want to use the 5 GHz band to deliver next-generation connected car applications, including applications that would warn drivers of collision threats. Toyota principal researcher John Kenney raised concerns about possible interference from Wi-Fi services at Wednesday's hearing. We have been actively engaged with the Wi-Fi community and other stakeholders who are exploring possible sharing solutions that will alleviate any risk of harmful interference from unlicensed devices
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti radios failing?
Nope. Needs a new radio. marlon -Original Message- From: Matt Hoppes Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 5:15 AM To: WISPA General List Cc: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti radios failing? Does the signal come back if you just reboot the radio? On Oct 18, 2013, at 8:06, Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) o...@odessaoffice.com wrote: Interesting. I wonder what we're doing differently. Replacing the card will get that 10 to 20dB of lost signal back 100% of the time. We spot the bad ones when there is a 10 to 20 dB difference between tx and rx signal levels showing in the registration (or other) window. marlon -Original Message- From: Scott Reed Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 3:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti radios failing? Grounding or water ingress. We have 100s of XR cards, both 900Mhxz, 2ghz and 5ghz in the air. I can't remember the last time we replaced a failed XR card that was actually bad that was not for water in the cable. On 10/17/2013 11:48 AM, Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) wrote: I see that a lot on the XR cards after storms in my area. Might be bad TX output or bad RX input numbers. I've changed a lot of cards this year because of a similar issue to yours. marlon -Original Message- From: Paolo Di Francesco Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 10:54 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Ubiquiti radios failing? dear all lately we are having some strange issues with some airgrids. We see that: 1) the signal on some radios is droppiing around 10dbi 2) it works in one direction but not the other (eg. tx=ok but rx not working) Is that happening to you too? Regards -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 Toll-free (855) 231-6239 ___ 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] Ubiquiti radios failing?
Interesting. I wonder what we're doing differently. Replacing the card will get that 10 to 20dB of lost signal back 100% of the time. We spot the bad ones when there is a 10 to 20 dB difference between tx and rx signal levels showing in the registration (or other) window. marlon -Original Message- From: Scott Reed Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 3:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti radios failing? Grounding or water ingress. We have 100s of XR cards, both 900Mhxz, 2ghz and 5ghz in the air. I can't remember the last time we replaced a failed XR card that was actually bad that was not for water in the cable. On 10/17/2013 11:48 AM, Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) wrote: I see that a lot on the XR cards after storms in my area. Might be bad TX output or bad RX input numbers. I've changed a lot of cards this year because of a similar issue to yours. marlon -Original Message- From: Paolo Di Francesco Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 10:54 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Ubiquiti radios failing? dear all lately we are having some strange issues with some airgrids. We see that: 1) the signal on some radios is droppiing around 10dbi 2) it works in one direction but not the other (eg. tx=ok but rx not working) Is that happening to you too? Regards -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 Toll-free (855) 231-6239 ___ 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] Ubiquiti radios failing?
I see that a lot on the XR cards after storms in my area. Might be bad TX output or bad RX input numbers. I've changed a lot of cards this year because of a similar issue to yours. marlon -Original Message- From: Paolo Di Francesco Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 10:54 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Ubiquiti radios failing? dear all lately we are having some strange issues with some airgrids. We see that: 1) the signal on some radios is droppiing around 10dbi 2) it works in one direction but not the other (eg. tx=ok but rx not working) Is that happening to you too? Regards -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it ___ 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] packaging suggestions
That would be cool! marlon -Original Message- From: wi...@metrocom.ca Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 4:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions I have them at the office, so I can send them when I am back, but I have a better idea. I am getting a quote from a media production company to make a WISP version of these videos, with the ability to throw the logo of a WISP and the url into the video along with a few customized lines of text like, All of us a XYZ WISP are please to explain to you how our bandwidth management plans work - If enough companies signed up, we should be able to make it cheap enough for everyone to have a custom-made video. Daniel Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) o...@odessaoffice.com wrote .. Do you have a link to some of the videos Daniel? Might be helpful for us to send them to our customers or those that call for information. thanks, marlon -Original Message- From: wi...@metrocom.ca Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 8:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions Marlon has the right idea. I have been looking at what ATT is doing to lay the groundwork for pay-as-you-go bandwidth - you can see some of their 'informational' videos on YouTube - and essentially they are setting a really high limit on usage in GB terms, and then billing above that so as to hit the bandwidth hogs. They are phasing it in, and giving people usage meters and alerts to show their usage patterns, but it all leads to having a way for them to tackle the small minority who take an outsize share of the bandwidth, and I have to say they do a good job of making that point clear in those videos. Next year we will also introduce the same sort of tiered fair-use/flat rate plans to enable us to segment the customer base, and most likely do that in the same way as they are. Daniel Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) o...@odessaoffice.com wrote .. Offer a choice to them. $100++ for a speed limited but bit “unlimited” (read that to mean high threshold) plan. Or, $40 for a lower usage plan with smaller steps for higher than average but non disruptive customers. And remember, the high usage customers are costing more than they are paying. You are better off to loose x% of your customer base than to keep them. Pass those folks to your competition and let them die trying to figure out how to support them. And never forget, we are not the only ones having this problem. The big guys are feeling it far worse than we are, we just don’t hear about it as much. And in the next few years the compression mechanisms will get better, AP’s will start to ship with built in cache systems, more data will fit down the same pipe etc. We’ll be able to deliver these services to people sooner than later, just have to stay in business long enough to let the technologies catch up to what the markets are really asking for. marlon From: Joe Miller Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:18 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions Joe, I do agree that usage based billing is the way to go. However, when our system was originally built 10 years ago, it was done so on the “unlimited” platform. The customers that we have I believe will respond in a negative way to the change. So how can we migrate a unlimited system to a UBB system without for a better word, piss off the existing customer base. I have thought about this for quite some time and the billing system I have in place can handle running both at the same time. What would be a good price point per gig of bandwidth? From looking at the current customer usage I think using $1.00 per gig would be a good starting point for discussion. Some customers will see a reduction in monthly cost while most will see an increase in their monthly service. I can see how we can re coup the cost of bandwidth a lot easier. I would like to come up with an email for my customers to ask them what they think in regards to having virtually as much bandwidth as they can use in exchange for billing for that usage. Basically, caped speed with flat rate vs uncapped speed with metered rate. I’m looking at expanding into a new area and using the UBB platform will be a lot easier to start out with, but changing out the current customer base to UBB will be a bigger pill to swallow. I think that this is a good discussion for a session in Vegas. We have hundreds of companies that are members of WISPA, and I think with enough minds on this that we can come up with a good solution for everyone. Regards, Joe Miller www.dslbyair.com www.facebook.com/dslbyair 228-831-8881 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions
Everyone runs just as fast as we can make them go. We don’t care how fast or how far you drive your car, all we care about is how much fuel it takes to go where you want to go. marlon From: Sam Tetherow Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 3:26 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions For those that do strictly usage based billing, are your customer connections wide open or do you do some sort of rate limit as well? On 10/08/2013 05:19 PM, Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) wrote: We’ve done usage based billing since day one. We’ve lost roughly 15% of our customer base over the last couple of years because of it. But the ones we’ve lost are the ones that think they should be able to give up a $100 per month cable bill and replace it with a $0 increase internet bill (keep that same ol’ $40/month account but do $100+++ more with it). We’re starting to get a few of them back. And our growth in other areas (non high usage customers) has still exceeded the losses. Plus we have the reputation for being the fastest, most reliable provider in the area. Probably the cheapest too. The best part is that we’ve flooded our competitor’s systems. Even the telco has put a freeze on new DSL customers in some of the areas around here. Last night a customer told me that the telco told them (moving into a house that already had DSL) that they were going to freeze the customer base where it’s at for an unknown length of time. laters, marlon From: Fred Goldstein Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 2:55 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions On 9/25/2013 1:00 PM, heith petersen wrote: I just got off the phone with a customer. I made some adjustments to his SM the other day to make netflix work. He called back today to tell me it works good but his direct tv showtime package is OK but not great. I kind of wanted to ask him what the hell gives dish net the right to sell you a service that rides on my back bone where I do not make anymore money for your additional use of my service. Anyways I got that off my chest. So our situation has been for years residential customers pay a flat rate, we have no speed or usage based packages. When the customer calls about netflix I make throttle adjustments in the SM to make them happy. Well eventually I have an overloaded AP, then I have to either sectorize or add a different frequency, add higher capacity BHs out of my pocket, just to keep my customers happy at the same price we have been charging for 10 years. (We recently, since going to new billing service, added a $2 paper fee for non emailed invoices and I get crucified by the same customers every month). Ideally I want to get away from mechanical throttles. We are in the middle running our authentication thru our new billing system, and converting bridged to fully routed. You know, the things we should have been doing from day one. Anyways, once we get things squared away, what’s a common practice on doing packages? If you have basic customers out there that do not stream or use tons of bandwidth would you keep them at the current rate, or drop the rate and throttle them tight? I would assume that we would want to offer an increased package to known streamers, maybe throttle them down to a basic level and wait to hear from them when they are willing to upgrade their package? I would then anticipate that making the expenditures to provide them with the service would be worth the venture. Anyways just looking for some suggestions. There is always time to do it right the second time around http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless This is a really big problem for WISPs. Streaming high-quality video has been the potential elephant in the room of the ISP business for a long time. It is finally starting to show up in the room, thanks to Netflix, Hulu, and others like them. Poisoning the well is the public's paranoia about cable companies, who usually have ample Internet capacity (fiber to a major peering point; high capacity HFC networks). So if they do anything to limit streaming, it's seen as an anti-competitive trick, to get people to buy more channels. This may or may not be true, but that's the public perception, which was a major driver of the network neutrality kerfuffle now in court. Of course most WISPs are nothing like cable! But the public doesn't see the difference, and if the FCC gains authority over WISPs (which they shouldn't have, by law, but what's the law when the public wants their circuses, I mean teevee?), then if WISPs do anything that selectively blocks video, or even UDP, it might be seen as a violation. So your legal authority to act is in question. And who is leading the appeal against the law? Verizon, who is actually behind it (since it hurts Comcast more than them). Hence their arguments are on the lame side. The only
Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions
Do you have a link to some of the videos Daniel? Might be helpful for us to send them to our customers or those that call for information. thanks, marlon -Original Message- From: wi...@metrocom.ca Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 8:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions Marlon has the right idea. I have been looking at what ATT is doing to lay the groundwork for pay-as-you-go bandwidth - you can see some of their 'informational' videos on YouTube - and essentially they are setting a really high limit on usage in GB terms, and then billing above that so as to hit the bandwidth hogs. They are phasing it in, and giving people usage meters and alerts to show their usage patterns, but it all leads to having a way for them to tackle the small minority who take an outsize share of the bandwidth, and I have to say they do a good job of making that point clear in those videos. Next year we will also introduce the same sort of tiered fair-use/flat rate plans to enable us to segment the customer base, and most likely do that in the same way as they are. Daniel Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) o...@odessaoffice.com wrote .. Offer a choice to them. $100++ for a speed limited but bit “unlimited” (read that to mean high threshold) plan. Or, $40 for a lower usage plan with smaller steps for higher than average but non disruptive customers. And remember, the high usage customers are costing more than they are paying. You are better off to loose x% of your customer base than to keep them. Pass those folks to your competition and let them die trying to figure out how to support them. And never forget, we are not the only ones having this problem. The big guys are feeling it far worse than we are, we just don’t hear about it as much. And in the next few years the compression mechanisms will get better, AP’s will start to ship with built in cache systems, more data will fit down the same pipe etc. We’ll be able to deliver these services to people sooner than later, just have to stay in business long enough to let the technologies catch up to what the markets are really asking for. marlon From: Joe Miller Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:18 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions Joe, I do agree that usage based billing is the way to go. However, when our system was originally built 10 years ago, it was done so on the “unlimited” platform. The customers that we have I believe will respond in a negative way to the change. So how can we migrate a unlimited system to a UBB system without for a better word, piss off the existing customer base. I have thought about this for quite some time and the billing system I have in place can handle running both at the same time. What would be a good price point per gig of bandwidth? From looking at the current customer usage I think using $1.00 per gig would be a good starting point for discussion. Some customers will see a reduction in monthly cost while most will see an increase in their monthly service. I can see how we can re coup the cost of bandwidth a lot easier. I would like to come up with an email for my customers to ask them what they think in regards to having virtually as much bandwidth as they can use in exchange for billing for that usage. Basically, caped speed with flat rate vs uncapped speed with metered rate. I’m looking at expanding into a new area and using the UBB platform will be a lot easier to start out with, but changing out the current customer base to UBB will be a bigger pill to swallow. I think that this is a good discussion for a session in Vegas. We have hundreds of companies that are members of WISPA, and I think with enough minds on this that we can come up with a good solution for everyone. Regards, Joe Miller www.dslbyair.com www.facebook.com/dslbyair 228-831-8881 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 9:17 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions I believe Fred to be correct. Packages based on speed are not the answer. We call our connection a “pipe”, so let’s use a related analogy; You can have two homes with water service. One is an older home that has a ½ inch water main, the other is new construction and has a 1 inch service main. House number 1 has the original fixtures, so the toilet uses 6 gallons per flush, the shower flow is 7 gallons per minute and the clothes washer uses 40-55 gallons per load. House number two, being built under new codes that promote conservation has a low flow toilet that will use 1.6 – 2 gallons per flush, a low flow shower head that restricts flow to 2.5 gallons per minute and a new clothes washer that uses 20 gallons per load
Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions
We’ve done usage based billing since day one. We’ve lost roughly 15% of our customer base over the last couple of years because of it. But the ones we’ve lost are the ones that think they should be able to give up a $100 per month cable bill and replace it with a $0 increase internet bill (keep that same ol’ $40/month account but do $100+++ more with it). We’re starting to get a few of them back. And our growth in other areas (non high usage customers) has still exceeded the losses. Plus we have the reputation for being the fastest, most reliable provider in the area. Probably the cheapest too. The best part is that we’ve flooded our competitor’s systems. Even the telco has put a freeze on new DSL customers in some of the areas around here. Last night a customer told me that the telco told them (moving into a house that already had DSL) that they were going to freeze the customer base where it’s at for an unknown length of time. laters, marlon From: Fred Goldstein Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 2:55 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions On 9/25/2013 1:00 PM, heith petersen wrote: I just got off the phone with a customer. I made some adjustments to his SM the other day to make netflix work. He called back today to tell me it works good but his direct tv showtime package is OK but not great. I kind of wanted to ask him what the hell gives dish net the right to sell you a service that rides on my back bone where I do not make anymore money for your additional use of my service. Anyways I got that off my chest. So our situation has been for years residential customers pay a flat rate, we have no speed or usage based packages. When the customer calls about netflix I make throttle adjustments in the SM to make them happy. Well eventually I have an overloaded AP, then I have to either sectorize or add a different frequency, add higher capacity BHs out of my pocket, just to keep my customers happy at the same price we have been charging for 10 years. (We recently, since going to new billing service, added a $2 paper fee for non emailed invoices and I get crucified by the same customers every month). Ideally I want to get away from mechanical throttles. We are in the middle running our authentication thru our new billing system, and converting bridged to fully routed. You know, the things we should have been doing from day one. Anyways, once we get things squared away, what’s a common practice on doing packages? If you have basic customers out there that do not stream or use tons of bandwidth would you keep them at the current rate, or drop the rate and throttle them tight? I would assume that we would want to offer an increased package to known streamers, maybe throttle them down to a basic level and wait to hear from them when they are willing to upgrade their package? I would then anticipate that making the expenditures to provide them with the service would be worth the venture. Anyways just looking for some suggestions. There is always time to do it right the second time around http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless This is a really big problem for WISPs. Streaming high-quality video has been the potential elephant in the room of the ISP business for a long time. It is finally starting to show up in the room, thanks to Netflix, Hulu, and others like them. Poisoning the well is the public's paranoia about cable companies, who usually have ample Internet capacity (fiber to a major peering point; high capacity HFC networks). So if they do anything to limit streaming, it's seen as an anti-competitive trick, to get people to buy more channels. This may or may not be true, but that's the public perception, which was a major driver of the network neutrality kerfuffle now in court. Of course most WISPs are nothing like cable! But the public doesn't see the difference, and if the FCC gains authority over WISPs (which they shouldn't have, by law, but what's the law when the public wants their circuses, I mean teevee?), then if WISPs do anything that selectively blocks video, or even UDP, it might be seen as a violation. So your legal authority to act is in question. And who is leading the appeal against the law? Verizon, who is actually behind it (since it hurts Comcast more than them). Hence their arguments are on the lame side. The only things going for us in the DC Circuit are that the DC Circuit dislikes the FCC in general, and the FCC did a really bad job in claiming the authority. Thus the neutral answer is to move towards bandwidth caps. This to me makes more sense, to a WISP, than a rate-based price tier. Somebody can burst at 10 Mbps once in a while and put little load on the network, but somebody watching TV at 3 Mbps all day will clobber you. Gigabytes/month represents a monthly average load. If you do this, you can raise everyone's base rate to the max.
Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions
Offer a choice to them. $100++ for a speed limited but bit “unlimited” (read that to mean high threshold) plan. Or, $40 for a lower usage plan with smaller steps for higher than average but non disruptive customers. And remember, the high usage customers are costing more than they are paying. You are better off to loose x% of your customer base than to keep them. Pass those folks to your competition and let them die trying to figure out how to support them. And never forget, we are not the only ones having this problem. The big guys are feeling it far worse than we are, we just don’t hear about it as much. And in the next few years the compression mechanisms will get better, AP’s will start to ship with built in cache systems, more data will fit down the same pipe etc. We’ll be able to deliver these services to people sooner than later, just have to stay in business long enough to let the technologies catch up to what the markets are really asking for. marlon From: Joe Miller Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:18 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions Joe, I do agree that usage based billing is the way to go. However, when our system was originally built 10 years ago, it was done so on the “unlimited” platform. The customers that we have I believe will respond in a negative way to the change. So how can we migrate a unlimited system to a UBB system without for a better word, piss off the existing customer base. I have thought about this for quite some time and the billing system I have in place can handle running both at the same time. What would be a good price point per gig of bandwidth? From looking at the current customer usage I think using $1.00 per gig would be a good starting point for discussion. Some customers will see a reduction in monthly cost while most will see an increase in their monthly service. I can see how we can re coup the cost of bandwidth a lot easier. I would like to come up with an email for my customers to ask them what they think in regards to having virtually as much bandwidth as they can use in exchange for billing for that usage. Basically, caped speed with flat rate vs uncapped speed with metered rate. I’m looking at expanding into a new area and using the UBB platform will be a lot easier to start out with, but changing out the current customer base to UBB will be a bigger pill to swallow. I think that this is a good discussion for a session in Vegas. We have hundreds of companies that are members of WISPA, and I think with enough minds on this that we can come up with a good solution for everyone. Regards, Joe Miller www.dslbyair.com www.facebook.com/dslbyair 228-831-8881 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Joe Fiero Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 9:17 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions I believe Fred to be correct. Packages based on speed are not the answer. We call our connection a “pipe”, so let’s use a related analogy; You can have two homes with water service. One is an older home that has a ½ inch water main, the other is new construction and has a 1 inch service main. House number 1 has the original fixtures, so the toilet uses 6 gallons per flush, the shower flow is 7 gallons per minute and the clothes washer uses 40-55 gallons per load. House number two, being built under new codes that promote conservation has a low flow toilet that will use 1.6 – 2 gallons per flush, a low flow shower head that restricts flow to 2.5 gallons per minute and a new clothes washer that uses 20 gallons per load. With a family of 5 in each house, it’s easy to see that , despite the smaller service pipe, that house number 1 will have many times the water usage as house number 2. A smaller pipe did nothing to control the flow because the flow limit of the pipe was not reached. Those two pipes are exactly like a 3 meg and 5 meg Internet connection. Within reason, the size of the pipe will do little to limit heavy bandwidth usage. It only serves to spread it out, creating a longer period of time that it puts a demand on our networks. Like most, we saw our network performance begin to deteriorate as Netflix switched from a physical to a digital delivery system. The others since then have continued to slow our once speedy connections. Now we, as an industry, are faced with a continued rebuild to meet a voracious demand for bandwidth to deliver content that we never intended, or anticipated. Worse yet, we are being positioned to provide these improvements to support the business model of companies that barely acknowledge our existence. And they are getting smarter in their use of our pipes. There was a time when if you didn’t have a good 4.5 meg flow, Netflix would not stream. They have gone to much more advanced encoding
Re: [WISPA] 802.11 and roaming
I have a system that Butch built running in cop cars. It works quite well. It’s MT based and automatically handles the change of tower and ip addressing that goes with that. It’ll even lock onto the unsecured out of the box Linksys type systems of old or any other ones we can identify ahead of time. marlon From: Blair Davis Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2013 8:19 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] 802.11 and roaming I've tried MikroTik. I've tried Cisco. I've tried UniFi. I pretty much don't think there is a working way to roam from AP to AP with 802.11 in an open system. The client holds on to the weak AP long after there are stronger AP's to talk to. I think this is just the way it works. Now, we are giving each AP a unique ESSID but keeping them bridged on the wired side and requiring the user to change the connection when out of range... Not the best answer, but it works much better for the clients who don't move much... I'd love a better answer... -- 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] 5.8 Separation
A good rule of thumb is at least 10’ vertical or 20’ horizontal between anything in the same band. Further is better . marlon From: ~NGL~ Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 4:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] 5.8 Separation We have the following setup: Tower 1 = Tranzeo TR-5 plus AP Tower 2 = Tranzeo TR-5 plus CPE + TR-5 plus AP Tower 3 = Tranzeo TR-5 plus CPE These have worked fine for several years, now we want to add a duplicate link using Nanobridges 5.8 instead of the Tranzeo TR-5 Plus gear. How much physical separation should we plan on between the Tranzeo units and the Nanobridges? 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 inline: wlEmoticon-smile[1].pnginline: flag.gif___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] 5.8 Separation
I’ve been putting two radios into my MT AP’s for a couple of years now. Nearly every site has 2.4 and 5 gig. No problems that I know of. Even with the sectors within a couple of feet of each other. marlon From: Clay Stewart Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:14 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 5.8 Separation In extending this thread... what about a 5.8 Dishes with a 2.4 Dish (Rockets). I want to add a 2.4 rocket dish where I have several 5.8 RDs and PowerBridges 5.8... problem being space, I need to put dish within 2' - 3' of 5.8 dishes. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) o...@odessaoffice.com wrote: A good rule of thumb is at least 10’ vertical or 20’ horizontal between anything in the same band. Further is better . marlon From: ~NGL~ Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 4:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] 5.8 Separation We have the following setup: Tower 1 = Tranzeo TR-5 plus AP Tower 2 = Tranzeo TR-5 plus CPE + TR-5 plus AP Tower 3 = Tranzeo TR-5 plus CPE These have worked fine for several years, now we want to add a duplicate link using Nanobridges 5.8 instead of the Tranzeo TR-5 Plus gear. How much physical separation should we plan on between the Tranzeo units and the Nanobridges? 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 -- -- SCS Clay Stewart CEO, Tye River Farms, Inc., DBA Stewart Computer Services 434.263.6363 O 434.942.6510 C cstew...@stewartcomputerservices.com “We Keep You Up and Running” Wireless Broadband Programming Network Services ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless inline: wlEmoticon-smile[1].pnginline: flag.gif___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] shielded rj45 ends
We love the EZ-RJ45 units. Get them from Marsh Cable. It’s the style where the wires go right through the ends of the connectors and the crimper crimps and cuts at the same time. HUGE time saver. marlon From: heith petersen Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 6:50 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] shielded rj45 ends I was curious what shielded ends members are using. I typically use the cable that Cayman wireless sells, definitely not tough cable. I prefer the UBNT tough ends as I have no issues with them, however some of my techs dread them. I have purchased some other ends in the past but at a high premium. Anyways just looking for some ideas as I am getting out voted on the tough ends. 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] Contract for using a customer's tree
We've done this from time to time. Use stainless screws, regular ones rust after just a few years. Make sure that the customer knows that you will have to re-aim the antenna from time to time. Things may have to be trimmed depending on what kind of tree it is etc. Out here a lot of people have big Poplar trees. They are always in the way (unless you want them for a windbreak then they work well) but make good radio mounting points. We don’t have a contract for it. It's their tree and their service I've not ever charged anyone to go back and re-aim the antennas but we do tell them that it would be a cost if we have to do so. Most of the time the aiming has stayed spot on long enough that the customer is due for an upgrade anyway. Hope that helps, marlon -Original Message- From: Josh Luthman Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 10:20 AM To: WISPA General List ; a...@afmug.com Subject: [WISPA] Contract for using a customer's tree I was hoping someone here has a ready to go contract that I can use. I don't want to be held responsible if the tree changes in any way as resulted by the mounting. This customer in particular has an old tree and doesn't want to take it down, but he has no problem putting screws into it. Because it is a family tree I don't want anything to come back on us. Any assistance is greatly appreciated =) 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
Re: [WISPA] shielded rj45 ends
Yes. There are two styles. One has no metal shielding, the other does. Both are expensive (relatively) but I’m addicted to them. I love not having to worry about how far back I strip things. Not having to worry about wires crossing when pushed into the connector (I can check them before crimping) etc. http://ezrj45.com/ezrj45plugs.php?gclid=CLSDvLWfxrgCFWXZQgodwlQANg Marsh cable stocks them. marlon From: Kevin Owen Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 11:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] shielded rj45 ends Do they support shielded cabling? Kevin From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 11:14 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] shielded rj45 ends We love the EZ-RJ45 units. Get them from Marsh Cable. It’s the style where the wires go right through the ends of the connectors and the crimper crimps and cuts at the same time. HUGE time saver. marlon From: heith petersen Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 6:50 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] shielded rj45 ends I was curious what shielded ends members are using. I typically use the cable that Cayman wireless sells, definitely not tough cable. I prefer the UBNT tough ends as I have no issues with them, however some of my techs dread them. I have purchased some other ends in the past but at a high premium. Anyways just looking for some ideas as I am getting out voted on the tough ends. 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
