Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Your input on 5 GHz rules changes needed
Regarding GPS I'm not against GPS in radios. The fact is It is NOT expensive to design GPSs into a radio. GPS chips are less than $5 now, and have been for quite some time. But, I am against mandatory disclosure or registration of a radio's GPS info. The identiy and location of a Radio should be able to be kept in confidence by database operator, at operator's request. (its a privacy issue). However, its worth the $5 just to have the GPS as a tool to remind the ISP where the radio is located, if they forget :-) Or as an anti-theft mechanism, to alert when it has moved. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jeromie Reeves jree...@18-30chat.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 1:14 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Your input on 5 GHz rules changes needed That would be great. What options do you see? DFS2 looks to have not got the job done. No one knows how the GPS+DB stuff will really look, or the costs it will add. The simplest way to do GPS would be to make a serial receive port. The DB part would be a pretty simple script. On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote: I do not see why we must suggest or FCC mandate a static one shoe fits all approach. The fact is, there are multiple ways to address the problem, each of which could be equally effective. As long as any one of those several options are chosen by an operator or manuacturer, problem solved. Why not support and enable choice? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jeromie Reeves jree...@18-30chat.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 12:10 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Your input on 5 GHz rules changes needed On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Blair Davis the...@wmwisp.net wrote: Inline reply's On 2/8/2011 11:31 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Charles N Wyble char...@knownelement.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/08/2011 02:23 PM, Jack Unger wrote: Comments inline. jack On 2/8/2011 2:09 PM, Blair Davis wrote: Some serious enforcement is in order. Major fines for repeated offense... $100K or more for 2nd offense... Serious fines and maybe total revocation of $Individual/$corp to transmit RF at all. I am all for the steel boot after the first warning. Sometimes slipups happen. Repeated slipups is clear intent. I agree with this totally. Last month we recommended to the FCC OET that they publicize actions against offenders who they locate. This would help get the message out that this is a serious problem and that enforcement is in fact taking place. That would be nice to see for many reasons. Is that covered at http://fcc.gov/eb/Orders/Welcome.html or http://fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/ ? I'd rather see the TDWR band notched out than any kind of required GPS and database... Why? I think we operators need to work out a policing deal with the FCC. If there was a easy way for the FAA/FCC to let us know that interference is happening at site ABC. Maybe a simple email list that we sign up to. This would be more akin to hams self policing. I do /not/ want to lose the band. Maybe we need a database that we can report links that we see and their locations/suspected locations. I know I have seen many illegal links and reports to the FCC fall on deaf ears so long ago I stopped trying to report it. Why? Because it will likely raise the cost of the equipment quite a bit to include the GPS hardware and the database access system... I am hoping for a system that forestalls the GPS needs. Namely, Disallow use in any radar areas if people can not pull their heads out of .. what ever dark places it is at. Or, at the very least a place WISPs can report what we see, and a place that the FCC can report what they see. If the band is totally not allowed, then the added cost of GPS would not matter would it? Notching may be the ultimate outcome for all new equipment. The disadvantage is that notching deprives everyone from using the spectrum, even the 90% of operators who are nowhere near a TDWR system. Maybe the FCC needs to 'notch' the TDWR areas, like the 3.650 exclusion zones. I would hate for such large areas to lose access but /I/ do not want to lose access because others are being /%$#@/ I could go for a 'licensed lite' system for the 5.4 band... but, if there is no better enforcement on 5.4 than there is on 3.65, what is the point? Very true. What is going on with the 3.65 stuff? I still think we need some kind of license enforcement there... Why? WISPA recently had it's first 3650 Steering Committee meeting and it was agreed that major work (education, best practices, possible rules changes
Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband
that is an acceptable solution. Penalize the masses, to help the minority, for a stronger total USA. I'd have to agree with the idealology. The question now is... Is it still necessary? Has the work already been done? Is DSL, T1s, and Fixed Wireless good enough for Super Rural America? If we want to stop USF, we must prove that the job is already done, and there is no need for USF anymore. The second ethical question is... Should someone qualify for subsidees that didn;t pay into the fund. I say yes, because its not about who is the beneficiary, its about fortunateate consumers helping other less fortunateate consumers. Its irrelevent who the recipient is, if it creates a stronger broadband solution for the consumers of the area, and most efficiently uses the funds available. ONce again we must strongly argue that wireless is the most efficient use of funds for rural areas, quick to deploy. And above all ONGOING Competitive environments not lcoal monopolies not a specific speed technology, is what benefits consumer's most. LAstly, Our theme song should be... You cant always have what you want, but if you try you can have what you need :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.com To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 5:55 PM Subject: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband Ugh...not good. Last thing I need is to compete with the ILEC who is getting money from the Universal Slush Fund to provide government subsidized broadband in rural areas. And I can see every ILEC in America lobbing to ensure that the distribution of USF continues as is if the shift is made to broadband instead of telephone...basically filling the ILEC's coffers! The FCC is looking for comments, so we all need to make it quite clear that the funds should be available for any and all broadband providers! http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20110207/tc_nf/77213 Bret Bret Clark Spectra Access 25 Lowell Street Manchester, NH 03101 www.spectraaccess.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Gigabit Router or L3 Switch?
Are you sure on that? I'm not an expert on CISCO, and could have it wrong but, I had thought Known fact... Cisco 3550 (enterprise OS ver) was an industry standard Gig router that also did OSPF and BGP, although now End of Lifed.. It was easy and affordable to find on used market. It didn't support newer things like MPLS packet sizes and such. However, I thought the 3560 was actually a newer model but also a scaled down version of the 3550 router. Either having less processing power or RAM limits. Therefore not very advantageous to get a 3560. I then thought the 3750 (enterprise OS ver) switch was the current day product equivellent to the 3550 spec, good for BGP and OSPF, but better, for example using the smaller FC iconnectors nstead of SC connectors, and possibly support of newer Cisco supported protocols also. So my question is Is the 3560 really an equivellent of a 3750 minus stackwise? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Blake Covarrubias bl...@beamspeed.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 1:40 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Gigabit Router or L3 Switch? 3660 is a router, 3560 is a switch. In fact, the 3560 is pretty much the 3750 series w/out StackWise. A Catalyst 3750 can be had for around 2k on the refurbished market. I can put you in touch with a reseller if needed. -- Blake Covarrubias On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:36 PM, Blake Bowers wrote: Naturally - and I have stacks of 3660's that are barely above scrap value. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: John J Thomas jtho...@quarnet.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 12:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Gigabit Router or L3 Switch? Cisco 3560 series are about $4000... WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses
The problem I see with ARIN right now is that ARIN is still controlled by the largest carriers, who own large pools with excess V4 IP space available. It is not to their benefit to preserve V4 space, when they control whats remaining. What it will mean is that many small providers will become enslaven to their upstream Tier1 providers. In my opinion this is an emergency situation, that the FCC or Feds should step in on. I'd hate to see the same thing happen to IPv4 space as happened to Domain Names, where horders extort the system to gain huge unfair profits. I recognize that large blocks are now gone. What I wonder is whether small blocks are still available at ARIN? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses At 2/7/2011 11:34 AM, Matt wrote: No, it's not a real problem. I liken it to the exhaust of homesteads in the past century. You used to be able to go to a land office and ask for your 40 acres. Then they ran out. But you could still buy a farm from somebody who previously had a homestead. Very few are going to give up there 'old' IP space without wanting a high price if at all. I know I won't, any one else going too? Like most ISP's we grow every year not shrink. I see this as a real problem. I imagine we will dual stack soon and when the pinch comes give lower tier users a NAT'ed IPv4 IP and a /48 or /64 of IPv6 space. I hate the idea of handing out NAT'ed IP space though. Too hard to tell who did what. My opinion is there should be a very hard push to IPv6. Who says anything about giving up old IP space? It's not chattel property. It is merely an identifier in a protocol header, used under a voluntary agreement to exchange traffic. It was given away for free; it can be taken back. The FCC has legal authority over the North American Numbering Plan in the US, which is the *name* space for telephones. Unlike the Internet, it's not voluntary, it's regulated. About a decade ago, they ordered Number Pooling to begin. Carriers who had prefix codes with unused or under-utilized thousands blocks had to return them. Carriers today still have to file semiannual reports on number utilization. Notice how area code splits suddenly slowed to a crawl in the early part of the last decade? Number pooling did it. This was not voluntary. Your unused blocks of numbers were Reclaimed. If IANA or the RIRs wanted to do this, they could. They could simply announce that HP no longer owns Net 16 (old DEC space acquired with Compaq), for instance, effective x date, and HP should stop using it. And Halliburton and Daimler-Benz and other large-block holders should also lose unneeded space and be told to renumber. And then they should ask BGP users to respect the new assignments. Since the Internet is *voluntary*, Uncle Sam has no say; the ISP community decides who is the real owner of the space. The lawyers will, of course, try to find a way to get involved, since IPv4 address blocks *can* now be resold (to qualified buyers), so the large-block owners might see this as taking away windfall profits that they might be able to make by selling those oversized blocks. IAB made their bed, and now they'll have to sleep in it. Whats bad is 99% percent of consumer wifi routers do not support IPv6. That is going to be a HUGE issue. A good reason to assume that anything of any interest to the general public will remain on IPv4 for the foreseeable future, and v6-only will be limited to narrow-interest activities. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses
There was a requirement to use with IP allocation. (would need more within 3 months, if not allocated, or something like that). There is a legal basis to make IP holders return IPs that they are not using, or will not use within X months. Selling it on the secondary market is not the intent of the ARIN original rules, regardless of what recent decissions ARIN may have made.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses Probably not directed towards ISPs, but to other organizations. http://fixedorbit.com/stats.htm http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml GE probably doesn't need 16M+ IPs. HP probably doesn't need 33M+ IPs. Ford probably doesn't need 16M+ IPs.. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 2/7/2011 10:34 AM, Matt wrote: No, it's not a real problem. I liken it to the exhaust of homesteads in the past century. You used to be able to go to a land office and ask for your 40 acres. Then they ran out. But you could still buy a farm from somebody who previously had a homestead. Very few are going to give up there 'old' IP space without wanting a high price if at all. I know I won't, any one else going too? Like most ISP's we grow every year not shrink. I see this as a real problem. I imagine we will dual stack soon and when the pinch comes give lower tier users a NAT'ed IPv4 IP and a /48 or /64 of IPv6 space. I hate the idea of handing out NAT'ed IP space though. Too hard to tell who did what. My opinion is there should be a very hard push to IPv6. Whats bad is 99% percent of consumer wifi routers do not support IPv6. That is going to be a HUGE issue. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Your input on 5 GHz rules changes needed
I do not see why we must suggest or FCC mandate a static one shoe fits all approach. The fact is, there are multiple ways to address the problem, each of which could be equally effective. As long as any one of those several options are chosen by an operator or manuacturer, problem solved. Why not support and enable choice? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jeromie Reeves jree...@18-30chat.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 12:10 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Your input on 5 GHz rules changes needed On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Blair Davis the...@wmwisp.net wrote: Inline reply's On 2/8/2011 11:31 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Charles N Wyble char...@knownelement.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/08/2011 02:23 PM, Jack Unger wrote: Comments inline. jack On 2/8/2011 2:09 PM, Blair Davis wrote: Some serious enforcement is in order. Major fines for repeated offense... $100K or more for 2nd offense... Serious fines and maybe total revocation of $Individual/$corp to transmit RF at all. I am all for the steel boot after the first warning. Sometimes slipups happen. Repeated slipups is clear intent. I agree with this totally. Last month we recommended to the FCC OET that they publicize actions against offenders who they locate. This would help get the message out that this is a serious problem and that enforcement is in fact taking place. That would be nice to see for many reasons. Is that covered at http://fcc.gov/eb/Orders/Welcome.html or http://fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/ ? I'd rather see the TDWR band notched out than any kind of required GPS and database... Why? I think we operators need to work out a policing deal with the FCC. If there was a easy way for the FAA/FCC to let us know that interference is happening at site ABC. Maybe a simple email list that we sign up to. This would be more akin to hams self policing. I do /not/ want to lose the band. Maybe we need a database that we can report links that we see and their locations/suspected locations. I know I have seen many illegal links and reports to the FCC fall on deaf ears so long ago I stopped trying to report it. Why? Because it will likely raise the cost of the equipment quite a bit to include the GPS hardware and the database access system... I am hoping for a system that forestalls the GPS needs. Namely, Disallow use in any radar areas if people can not pull their heads out of .. what ever dark places it is at. Or, at the very least a place WISPs can report what we see, and a place that the FCC can report what they see. If the band is totally not allowed, then the added cost of GPS would not matter would it? Notching may be the ultimate outcome for all new equipment. The disadvantage is that notching deprives everyone from using the spectrum, even the 90% of operators who are nowhere near a TDWR system. Maybe the FCC needs to 'notch' the TDWR areas, like the 3.650 exclusion zones. I would hate for such large areas to lose access but /I/ do not want to lose access because others are being /%$#@/ I could go for a 'licensed lite' system for the 5.4 band... but, if there is no better enforcement on 5.4 than there is on 3.65, what is the point? Very true. What is going on with the 3.65 stuff? I still think we need some kind of license enforcement there... Why? WISPA recently had it's first 3650 Steering Committee meeting and it was agreed that major work (education, best practices, possible rules changes, etc.) is needed because the interference situation is getting way out of hand. Hmmm. Interesting. That's news to me. Where does one see info about the violations? Is it happening on private lists or something? I don't recall any complaints on the WISPA general list about it. There are also more and more illegal (unlicensed) bootleggers using the band. One solution (among many) is to use a regional email list to coordinate between different operators. This is in use now in Phoenix. H. Well illegal/unlicensed use is a clear enforcement action and should be referred to the FCC EB. Coordination among entities... as I recall that was very vague in the RO. Is the FCC feeling pressure to do the enforcement side of its job and not wanting to, or is it unable, or ? I am all for helping them clean things up. How can we as wisps do this and how can wispa help us and the FCC? A) WISPS need a open place to report things we see B) The FCC needs a place to report to us when it see's/receives a report of interference. Thoughts? I mentioned this a month or two back... In an area with NO other registered 3.65 locations, I have already found 3.65 gear in use. That is not good. We need a way to shut them down. How many man hours does it take to do
Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses
Actually, I just got done reading the ARIN website notes on the topic. My bad... Still plenty of IPv4 space available for allocation in ARIN's pool. Just IANA ran out. Actually not true either. IANA just allocated the last pool, before they were required to only allocate smaller blocks equally between all RIRs, from the remaining pools. But I dont think it hurt to have a momentary panic, to remind us that IPv4 could run out before to long. I also didn;t mean any of my past statements to be a negative attack on ARIN current performance. I have no problems with it's leaders. However when ARIN's Pool is depleted, there will likely be much controversy on whats legal to re-assign IPs. A constant ongoing effort has occured to try to elect members of the board from diverse stakeholders, so ARIN is not only controlled by the Large Carriers owning the largest IP Blocks. And just like there was a war to own domain names, there will be an attempt to capitalize on IPv4 space in demand. People will exploit the opportunity if they can. The Blackmarket for IP space is a real possibilty. I can see it now BAckroom deals and auctions to encourage a transfer of IP space from one to the other. UNless ARIN makes rules to prevent it. Whether that is the case may be determined by how quickly ISPs and MAnufacturers fully embrace IPv6. Obviously if no one ends up needing IPv4 anymore, than it wont be a problem. We'll see. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses It isn't ARIN, it is all the RIRs. And ARIN just go another /8 to divide up. That is a bunch of /22 or /23 networks. I don't think ARIN is controlled by anyone. From what I have seen in the last 6 months, they have some very strict rules and follow them. The rules do not seem to favor anyone, other than large blocks are quite expensive. The big blocks that you are referring to that are held by large organizations are usually the legacy blocks. The legacy blocks are not under direct ARIN control. Never, ever, would I want more Federal Government intervention. In following the ARIN mail lists, I am not at all concerned about legitimate requests getting addresses allocated to them. Check out this page for what they are using now: https://www.arin.net/knowledge/ip_blocks.html On 2/8/2011 12:37 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: The problem I see with ARIN right now is that ARIN is still controlled by the largest carriers, who own large pools with excess V4 IP space available. It is not to their benefit to preserve V4 space, when they control whats remaining. What it will mean is that many small providers will become enslaven to their upstream Tier1 providers. In my opinion this is an emergency situation, that the FCC or Feds should step in on. I'd hate to see the same thing happen to IPv4 space as happened to Domain Names, where horders extort the system to gain huge unfair profits. I recognize that large blocks are now gone. What I wonder is whether small blocks are still available at ARIN? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Fred Goldsteinfgoldst...@ionary.com To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses At 2/7/2011 11:34 AM, Matt wrote: No, it's not a real problem. I liken it to the exhaust of homesteads in the past century. You used to be able to go to a land office and ask for your 40 acres. Then they ran out. But you could still buy a farm from somebody who previously had a homestead. Very few are going to give up there 'old' IP space without wanting a high price if at all. I know I won't, any one else going too? Like most ISP's we grow every year not shrink. I see this as a real problem. I imagine we will dual stack soon and when the pinch comes give lower tier users a NAT'ed IPv4 IP and a /48 or /64 of IPv6 space. I hate the idea of handing out NAT'ed IP space though. Too hard to tell who did what. My opinion is there should be a very hard push to IPv6. Who says anything about giving up old IP space? It's not chattel property. It is merely an identifier in a protocol header, used under a voluntary agreement to exchange traffic. It was given away for free; it can be taken back. The FCC has legal authority over the North American Numbering Plan in the US, which is the *name* space for telephones. Unlike the Internet, it's not voluntary, it's regulated. About a decade ago, they ordered Number Pooling to begin. Carriers who had prefix codes with unused or under-utilized thousands blocks had to return them. Carriers today still have to file semiannual reports
Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses
Nice post Glenn. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Glenn Kelley To: fai...@snappydsl.net ; WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 1:04 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses If you are stuck - you can change your network topology a bit. 1. Do IPv4 internally using Internal Network addresses. 2. Only give the public IPv4 address to folks who pay for it meet ARIN justification for the IP (amazing how that helps quite a bit ;-) ) 3. Utilize a public IP for those Natted clients 4. Utilize a 6to4 tunnelbroker (unless you have your own IPv6 dual stack running.) both SixXs and HE.net offer this service and provide FREE BGP routing if needed as well. 5. Run your own 6to4Nat implementation. While its a little bit of a struggle to get there - you can do 1to1 Nat worse case - well technically IPv6 does not support NAT - so let us call it what it really is - it's a private tunnel. By building your own tunnel and using at minimum linux 2.6.22 or above (older kernel will simply not work) - you can utilize the iproute2 package and voila - your problems are solved (well it takes work... ) Cisco routers support automatic 6to4 ISATAP as does Vyatta and many other routers now. I did a posting recently to UBNT asking when we can expect IPv6 from them - asked for a drop dead date... sadly have not seen that yet ;-( instead got a coming soon - a few months response. One important note - there are disadvantages of 6to4 relays such as the probability of asymmetric routing so unless you know what your doing - stick with Sixxs (if based in Europe) or HE.net (if US based) as a broker. On the plus side - my tunnel from Hurricane Electric www.HE.net (free) is actually lower latency to some parts of the world than my IPv4 route and almost always less hops. We have some servers @ Linode, some in our own data center here in Ohio, some in Texas and others in the UK - and the IPv6 Tunnel does some wonders for latency and routing between them ;-) This may be due to the fact that HE is on of the top 10 (actually # 6) networks in regards to peering. Currently according to fixed orbit - HE.net has 1385 networks it peers with - (More than Sprint, More than Road Runner - More than Comcast... and are beat out only by a few others. (to note the top 10 are as follows:) #1 Level 3 with 2703 peers #2 Cogent with 2696 peers (and folks keep bashing them saying their peering sucks... go figure) #3 ATT with 2332 peers #4 MCI/Verizon with 2009 peers #5 Global Crossing with 1390 peers #6 - HE.net with 1385 peers #7 Qwest with 1377 peers #8 TW Telecom Holdings (not Time Warner Cable / Road Runner ) with 1326 peers #9 Sprint with 1316 peers # 10 Init 7 AG with 958 peers (note those are direct peers ) On Feb 8, 2011, at 5:56 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: Who says you have to do anything ? What is working stays working.. yeah if you need to put a new 1000 Wifi routers.. very likely then you will need to put up the ones that support IPv6 Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 2/8/2011 5:52 PM, Carl Shivers wrote: So what is the solution if you have 1000+ WiFi routers that don't support IPv6? Pretty penny to replace. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 12:05 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses There was a requirement to use with IP allocation. (would need more within 3 months, if not allocated, or something like that). There is a legal basis to make IP holders return IPs that they are not using, or will not use within X months. Selling it on the secondary market is not the intent of the ARIN original rules, regardless of what recent decissions ARIN may have made.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammettwispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses Probably not directed towards ISPs, but to other organizations. http://fixedorbit.com/stats.htm http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml GE probably doesn't need 16M+ IPs. HP probably doesn't need 33M+ IPs. Ford probably doesn't need 16M+ IPs.. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 2/7/2011 10:34 AM, Matt wrote
Re: [WISPA] OT: Eqypt Has Been Disconnected from the Internet
Yeah, why do you think the Feds fund 1 large broadband winner per area? Reducing the number of broadband providers way simplifies feds taking control over them, if ever needed. Same thing with meet-me-points between middle and last mile located in Schools and government buildings. Critical infrastructure is now on Government property to ease Feds gaining access to it. If you ask me... The USA needs to continue to lead by example. Example of a Free Internet, Free from Government control. The last thing the USA should do is try to immulate Egypt's mis-use to censor it's people. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Stuart Pierce spie...@avolve.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 8:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Eqypt Has Been Disconnected from the Internet They can't stop the Godz Rock'n'Roll Machines ! -- Original Message -- From: Marco Coelho coelh...@gmail.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:18:53 -0600 Ohbummer is trying to get an internet off switch for himself as we speak. I think that is as scary as the way hitler started. Gun control, then mind control. On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 9:51 AM, St. Louis Broadband li...@stlbroadband.com wrote: and government office that* relied on the big four Egyptian ISPs* for their Internet connectivity is now cut off from the rest of the world Sounds like what the U.S. could morph into . ***Victoria Proffer - President/CEO* *www.ShowMeBroadband.com* *www.StLouisBroadband.com* *www.FarmingtonForum.com* http://farmingtonforum.com/ 314-974-5600 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.orgwireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of ch...@htswireless.com Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 9:31 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Eqypt Has Been Disconnected from the Internet They may be talking about the European-Asian fiber-optic routes that go through Egypt.. Chris -Original Message- From: Faisal Imtiaz Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 7:21 AM To: spie...@avolve.net ; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Eqypt Has Been Disconnected from the Internet I am sorry but that is a cheap shot I have never received any spam originating from Egypt... Tons of spam from here in the US though. :) Faisal On Jan 28, 2011, at 8:03 AM, Stuart Pierce spie...@avolve.net wrote: Well maybe some spam will stop, a little at least. -- Original Message -- From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 21:06:22 -0800 Sorry for the OT post. I thought some might be interested. *** Confirming what a few have reported this evening: in an action unprecedented in Internet history, the Egyptian government appears to have ordered service providers to shut down all international connections to the Internet. Critical European-Asian fiber-optic routes through Egypt appear to be unaffected for now. But every Egyptian provider, every business, bank, Internet cafe, website, school, embassy, and government office that relied on the big four Egyptian ISPs for their Internet connectivity is now cut off from the rest of the world. Link Egypt, Vodafone/Raya, Telecom Egypt, Etisalat Misr, and all their customers and partners are, for the moment, off the air. At 22:34 UTC (00:34am local time), Renesys observed the virtually simultaneous withdrawal of all routes to Egyptian networks in the Internet's global routing table. Approximately 3,500 individual BGP routes were withdrawn, leaving no valid paths by which the rest of the world could continue to exchange Internet traffic with Egypt's service providers. Virtually all of Egypt's Internet addresses are now unreachable, worldwide. -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author (2003) - Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks Serving the WISP, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http
Re: [WISPA] OT: Eqypt Has Been Disconnected from the Internet
The good news is Although there are negative forces against us, there are still folks in Congress and house/commerce committees that can understand our side, to preserve the structure of the INternet and the providers that truely understand how to operate it optimally. The easiest way to shut down or censor the Internet is via BGP and DNS. It was a big victory several months ago, when the ISP industry pulled togeather, and shut down the attempt of Security and Copyright agencies to hi-jack control of DNS via legislation. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: David Weddell da...@omnicity.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org; spie...@avolve.net Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 10:33 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Eqypt Has Been Disconnected from the Internet (Somewhat of a soapbox) The whole stimulus plan was the first step to reward a few winners. When you see the red tape attached to stimulus awards, it should make one run far away. We applied because consultants convinced us that it would be a way to fund our rural areas. We, Indiana WISPA, heard a great message a few weeks ago at our statewide meeting from Dan Picker of Purewave on how stimulus funds were the biggest disaster towards stimulating anything. Those of us that wasted time applying for funds kept from ordering equipment, making commitments to build out our network in the same manner that got us where we were already and we all suffered for the delay. Suppliers had the worst year and equipment manufacturers sat idles. Now we see how a government can control the entire Internet business with one switch. The sad thing is, we are down to a handful of real Internet providers that we buy our services from in the US. How long will it be before the Government will be able to shut us off l ike they did in Egypt? David Weddell (stepping off the soapbox and watching my back) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 10:01 AM To: spie...@avolve.net; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Eqypt Has Been Disconnected from the Internet Yeah, why do you think the Feds fund 1 large broadband winner per area? Reducing the number of broadband providers way simplifies feds taking control over them, if ever needed. Same thing with meet-me-points between middle and last mile located in Schools and government buildings. Critical infrastructure is now on Government property to ease Feds gaining access to it. If you ask me... The USA needs to continue to lead by example. Example of a Free Internet, Free from Government control. The last thing the USA should do is try to immulate Egypt's mis-use to censor it's people. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Stuart Pierce spie...@avolve.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 8:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Eqypt Has Been Disconnected from the Internet They can't stop the Godz Rock'n'Roll Machines ! -- Original Message -- From: Marco Coelho coelh...@gmail.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:18:53 -0600 Ohbummer is trying to get an internet off switch for himself as we speak. I think that is as scary as the way hitler started. Gun control, then mind control. On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 9:51 AM, St. Louis Broadband li...@stlbroadband.com wrote: and government office that* relied on the big four Egyptian ISPs* for their Internet connectivity is now cut off from the rest of the world Sounds like what the U.S. could morph into . ***Victoria Proffer - President/CEO* *www.ShowMeBroadband.com* *www.StLouisBroadband.com* *www.FarmingtonForum.com* http://farmingtonforum.com/ 314-974-5600 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.orgwireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of ch...@htswireless.com Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 9:31 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Eqypt Has Been Disconnected from the Internet They may be talking about the European-Asian fiber-optic routes that go through Egypt.. Chris -Original Message- From: Faisal Imtiaz Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 7:21 AM To: spie...@avolve.net ; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Eqypt Has Been Disconnected from the Internet I am sorry but that is a cheap shot I have never received any spam originating from Egypt... Tons of spam from here in the US though. :) Faisal On Jan 28, 2011, at 8:03 AM, Stuart Pierce spie...@avolve.net wrote: Well maybe some spam will stop, a little at least. -- Original Message
Re: [WISPA] Smith: Companies must save private data to combatchild porn
I believe it is more politically correct to disobey the law to protest it, than to break the law to enforce the law. I'd argue that breaking a law to enforce another leaves a loophole for a defendant, that disobeyed a law that should be protested, to use as a defense to have issue thrown out of court. I believe if stricter tracking regulations ever get made, the laws will likely get challenged. If you think its tough for small WISPs to archive usage data, jsut think how hard it would be for a large company serving millions of subs. And even if ISPs tracked the info, what good would it really do? How would one even verify the accuracy of the collected data, and verify it was not tampered with. For example, to prevent someone from framing another person, by spoofing IPs and such. If there is one law or regulation that should be made, it is that a broadband provider should not be required or allowed to fullfill the role of a law enforcement agent or spy, without first establishing probable cause, gainng warrante or subpeona, and supervision of law enforcement agent for the specific task. The cost of doing it blanket accross the board everyday for all far exceeds the Return of doing it. Not in line with goals of NBP to get affordable broadband to Americans. I'm not even sure that ISPs should ahve the right to store information without permission from the owner of the information. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Forbes Mercy forbes.me...@wabroadband.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Smith: Companies must save private data to combatchild porn I want that NCIS computer where every search takes a while but comes back with a BEEP BEEP so everyone knows in the room that they had results. Oh and the searches they do on cell is instantaneous plus they get in to every ISP without even a second thought. TV is just that entertainment, it would be cool for congress if life was like TV and personal rights of privacy didn't exist, that stupid inconvenient constitution keeps getting in the way of everything! My fav is when they justify breaking the law to enforce the law, what would be the point of the 'rule of law' if everyone adopted the 'ends justify the means' philosophy? I'll stop there before I get political, see restraint DOES come with age. Forbes On 1/26/2011 7:29 AM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: I would love to see the proof where someone got away for not having the ip/user information (but really, isps should haveat least that) and that every case that had ip/user information did result in a conviction of the correct offender. Personally, I think some politicians have been watching to much SVU and CSI. On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 6:21 AM, St. Louis Broadband li...@stlbroadband.com wrote: Yep, I hear you Stuart. So how do you battle ... stupid, we know you can't fix stupid … Victoria Proffer - President/CEO www.ShowMeBroadband.com www.StLouisBroadband.com www.FarmingtonForum.com 314-974-5600 -Original Message- From: Stuart Pierce [mailto:spie...@avolve.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 7:30 AM To: li...@stlbroadband.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Smith: Companies must save private data to combatchild porn Well it would seem they don't want us around, afterall, the less players there are, the more control there is. The world is crazy and this is just one more reactionary move by inept people in charge. Closer to the root of the problems needs to be addressed, but using the word of the day, they are disconnected ( probably have fiber in their palaces ). -- Original Message -- From: St. Louis Broadbandli...@stlbroadband.com Reply-To: li...@stlbroadband.com, WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 20:22:28 -0600 Same thing here from CNET: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20029393-281.html#ixzz1C6HMbtXG http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20029393-281.html Except they are saying it has to be saved for two years! All browsing data and email. Nice if you're a big ILEC and have endless funds . The more I look at the state of the broadband market today, I wonder if WISPs will exist in the next few years. Victoria Proffer - President/CEO www.ShowMeBroadband.com www.StLouisBroadband.com www.FarmingtonForum.comhttp://farmingtonforum.com/ 314-974-5600 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 8:12 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Smith: Companies must save private data to combat child porn Why do they not just make everyone apply for v6 space. At least that way was designed for tacking IP space to people. On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Jack Ungerjun...@ask-wi.com wrote
Re: [WISPA] WISPA DUES - (was: new list)
Jon, I personally like Chucks suggestion... Charging for subsriber count ranges via tiers, and using the honor system. It gives WISP an option to pay more, with the likelihood they will do the right thing, and those with more stake in the game with more to gain, will havea mechanism enabling to help more for mutual benefit. However, I recognize your point, of not wanting to turnoff members. But we cant ignore there is a clear benefit to having tiers. If concerned about turning off people by a tiered method, a possible solution is to reduce number of tiers to fewer, the bare mminimum to address the problem. The biggest reason for tiers is to never have a dues amount to large that it prevents some smaller but interested parties from justifying joining, but yet having Due at a higher rate for most members, in line with what can best help accomplish the goals the members desire. A small startup being exposed to WISPA, might question $500, but likely wouldn't question $250. But $500 dues is really needed to make a large neough impact. There is jsut as much a risk of loosing large WISPs as members, because WISPA doesn;t charge enough to afford to make a large enough impact, and therefore looks less relevent to the larger WISP. A mechanism must be in place to accommodate both profile companies.. For example, the Tiers could be just two... $250 for under 100subs, and $500 for over 100. Another option could be to have a first year discount. Allow Startups to pay $250, to experience the benefit of WISPA, with the assumption that the startup needs a year of growth before they are made to put in equal contribution as other more established WISPs. And again, because of the honor system, it could be left up to the applicant to state whether they considered themselves a startup or not to get a discount.. But even then, Associate membership might serve the purpose of low cost membership for startups. However, I personally believe that the very best way to accomplish WISPA's revenue goals is the accumulative effort of many. The easiest sell, and biggest impact could be obtained if every WISPA member stepped up to pay just a little bit more. As I stated before in this thread I beleive the lowest tier WISP Principle membership fee should be $350 (not 250). I beleive all of us should be able to afford $350. (and if I'm wrong, the honor system can assist with that). And that alone would raise $30k, right off the bat. I feel strongly about that. So in compromise I think a good dues structure might be Assoicate $150 Principle upto 1000subs- $350 Principle over 1000subs- $600 Now if that is not enough revenue, well then I beleive that at this time, the additional revenue beyond that needs to come from elsewhere. Preferrably via new membership recruiting. Or additional fund raising events. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jon Auer j...@tapodi.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 3:54 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA DUES - (was: new list) And would turn off more people than simply doubling the membership fee from $250 to $500... On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: That does add overhead... Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote: I think it should be based on customer count. Have a base rate, and then have the extra based on customer count. It's up to the WISP to report correctly. 1-500 base rate 500-1000 +100 1000-2000 +250 etc. Regards, Chuck On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: $250 first year $500 second+ year Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote: And I'd gladly pay another $250 per year more, if everyone would, and it guaranteed that WISPA would double their legal spending, for twice the FCC lobbying effort. My only complaint is that we could be doing more, if more money was collected to fund it. I'd argue after 6+ years at it, even just to cover inflation, a price increase of 3% per year is in line. Even if dues were raised jsut a little to $350 principle, and $150 Associate, the increase would be substantial for the organization, but almost unnoticed by the paying member. Just about anyone can afford an extra $50-100 per year. That combined with a target increase of 10% in membership recruitment, it would add up. I'd agree... $500-$1000 Dues might deter some people from staying members or joining. But I'll never understand why a small increase in dues has not been initiated. At minimum just to slowly test the waters on what
[WISPA] MetroPCS - NetNeutrality being tested
http://broadbandbreakfast.com/2011/01/metropcs-accused-of-violating-open-internet-order/?utm_source=BroadbandCensus.comutm_campaign=61c517eb88-ALL_01211_21_2011utm_medium=email Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Olufemi Adalemo To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] PtP Hi Akin, What are the link distances and throughput you require? - - - - - Olufemi Adalemo On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:06 AM, akinlolu C. Ajayi-Obe aajayi...@as-technologies.com wrote: I'm setting up four wirless links and three more links through an Internet provider to the zonal office. I have two choices for radion UBNT or Mikrotik. I might have to use a repeater for one or two sites. I also want to use a cisco ASA on each site. Any help or advice will be appreciated. Thanks Akinlolu C. Ajayi-Obe -Original Message- From: wireless-requ...@wispa.org Sender: wireless-boun...@wispa.org Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 12:00:03 To: wireless@wispa.org Reply-To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Wireless Digest, Vol 37, Issue 28 Send Wireless mailing list submissions to wireless@wispa.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wireless-requ...@wispa.org You can reach the person managing the list at wireless-ow...@wispa.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Wireless digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: Cisco ASA 5505 (Andy Trimmell) 2. Re: [Ubnt_users] NS5 issues? (Tom DeReggi) 3. Re: 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question (Tom DeReggi) 4. Re: 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question (Tom DeReggi) 5. Re: 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question (Tom DeReggi) 6. Re: 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question (Tom DeReggi) 7. IPPay Code 012 Declines (Chuck Hogg) 8. Re: IPPay Code 012 Declines (Josh Luthman) 9. Re: IPPay Code 012 Declines (Chuck Hogg) 10. Re: IPPay Code 012 Declines (Scott Reed) 11. Re: 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question (Charles N Wyble) -- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: 5.2 or 5.4 Short Hops
Yes, All pre-existing 5.3 links installed prior to the new DFS rule addition, are grand fathered. You are allowed to repair those grandfathered links and still not have to use DFS. Manufacturers are now only allowed to provide non-DFS 5.3 gear for repair purposes. (such as RMA repalcements). Its unclear whether a new radio brand (made after DFS rule addition) can be used to replace a grandfathered link. For example, if a 5.3 trango was in place for 8 years and then fails, could it be replaced by a Ubiquiti 5.3 radio (non-DFS certified) configured at equivellent powers, for the grandfathered path? Because of that question, Used 5.3Gear has a market. My personal opinion is that an inforcement agency would not likely press the issue, if path was proven to be grandfathered and not causing harm. I dont think they'd go as far as check dates of a product line's launch, installed at each grandfathered link location. Although, I doubt my opinion is legally correct. You should keep a list of all 5.3 Grandfathered links, so if questioned, you can prove such. What I did is I made a list of all 5.3 links, and put it in an envelope and sent it certified mail to myself, and left it unopened, and then attached a second copy of the list to the outside, and then filed it away. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Blair Davis To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 12:57 AM Subject: [Spam] Re: [WISPA] 5.2 or 5.4 Short Hops And now I learned something... that the 5.25-5.32GHz band is now limited by DFS. This applies to new links only? On 1/21/2011 12:47 AM, Blair Davis wrote: Here is the 5.2GHz grant for the CM9 https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/tcb/reports/Tcb731GrantForm.cfm?mode=COPYRequestTimeout=500tcb_code=application_id=972754fcc_id=NKRCM9 I'm still looking for the 5.2GHz grant for the xr5, but here is the grant for 5.8GHz https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/tcb/reports/Tcb731GrantForm.cfm?mode=COPYRequestTimeout=500tcb_code=application_id=992995fcc_id=SWX-XR5 On 1/21/2011 12:05 AM, Jerry Richardson wrote: Can you direct me to the CM9 and xr5 certification for the 5.2 band? I would really like to be able to use this band for a few sites where subs are 2-3 miles max - Jerry From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 9:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 5.2 or 5.4 Short Hops The cm9 and xr5 cards are certified for use in the 5.2GHz band (5.18-5.32GHz) and in the 5.8GHz band (5.745-5.825GHz). I don't use anything in the 5.4GHz band because that requires DFS I really don't want to rehash the modular certification argument again. On 1/20/2011 4:55 PM, Gino Villarini wrote: FCC certified? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 787.273.4143 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 5:48 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 5.2 or 5.4 Short Hops Use 5.2GHz, mikrotik with cm9 or xr5 cards. I do a PtP link 3200ft on 5.3GHz. Carries 50Mbit on a 40MHz channel with ease... On 1/20/2011 4:39 PM, Matt wrote: Looking for some gear to do 4 short hops under a mile and not interferwith existing 2.4 or 5.7 gear. Was thinking of the 5.2 or 5.4 bandgear. Whats out there that wont break the bank and is FCC compliantin that band? Leaning towards canopy but would like more bandwidthand a lower price. WISPA Wants You! Join today!http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -No virus found in this message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3391 - Release Date: 01/19/11 WISPA Wants You! Join today!http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3391 - Release Date: 01/19/11 -- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG
Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Announcements] Baltic Networks introduced a newlow-cost 6 Port Gigabit Router Powered by MikroTik at theAnimal Farm Expo in Salt Lake City, Utah
Actually, I think the 1106 is an excellent needed product. (There is a more expensive 10port Dual 2.9Ghz product for those needing more ports.) The reason is that there are many applications where 6 ports is plenty, more for customer side router. Where just a lot of processing power is needed to get full speed from the links. For example, I can use an example of a router used for auto Failover or load balancing for dual High capacity links. The enterprise doesn't care about a few 100 dollars, and whats lots of processing overhead, so they feel safe using any OS features without risk of performance degregation. Dual Core atoms is a good match for 6 lightly used Gig ports. And it allows a more affordable solution for those lower port density applications. Personally for systems with high port density, I recommend higher proc power. You need almost 3Ghz of Proc to get the full capacity out of a single Gigport (In and Out). It may seem like Dualcore 1.6g atoms is a lot, but not really for using many Gig ports at full capacity. We have routers that we load up with 16 Gig ports, but we'll generally put in a Quad 2.4G-3Ghz Procs minimum. And have upgradabilty to Dual Quad for when the router some day starts to become loaded heavy. (Disclaimer- Comments above are generalized, and I recognize many factor in mainboard effect throughput, as well as software enhancements, and packet size we're talking about) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 10:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Announcements] Baltic Networks introduced a newlow-cost 6 Port Gigabit Router Powered by MikroTik at theAnimal Farm Expo in Salt Lake City, Utah Nice to see products like this developing and being made available, but it still misses the mark by not including SFP ports. Also, the GigE port count is far too few. Six? Need more like 24 or 48 ports! grin USB ports are great to see on this router! Good job there and what IMO should be mandatory on all HUB site or core based routers. Best, Brad From: announcements-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:announcements-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Rick Harnish Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 10:55 AM To: announceme...@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA Announcements] Baltic Networks introduced a new low-cost 6 Port Gigabit Router Powered by MikroTik at the Animal Farm Expo in Salt Lake City, Utah Baltic Networks introduced a new low-cost 6 Port Gigabit Router Powered by MikroTik at the Animal Farm Expo in Salt Lake City, Utah January 14, 2011 Aurora, Illinois - Baltic Networks introduced MaxxWave RouterMaxx 1106T, a new low cost 6-port Gigabit Router powered by Intel® newest technology, the CoreT2 Quad/, the CoreT2 Duo Processor at the Animal Farm Expo. RouterMaxx 1106T runs on the MikroTik RouterOS platform and by combining it with the latest Intel technology, it is the next-generation commercial-grade gigabit router. Based on the latest Intel 82574L Gigabit Chipset and utilizing 6 independent Intel gigabit controllers and a multi-core CPU, it's possible to achieve over 200,000pps. The product provides performance up to 3 times faster than MikroTik's flagship product, the RB/1100. RouterMaxx 1106T competes directly with MikroTik RB/1100, Cisco and LinkTech PowerRouterT. Brian Vargyas, Managing Director at Baltic Networks, said: We felt that there was a need to bring in the next generation gigabit router to the market, given that the existing products on the market are all based on the technology that is either out of date or not providing enough port power for commercial-grade applications. Teaming up with MikroTik and MaxxWave, this next product represents a further step ahead in Baltic Networks' strategy, aimed at providing low-cost and ready-to-deploy solutions. RouterMaxx 6T Features: - Fanless Desktop Size - 1U Rackmount Bracket Optional - Runs RouterOS V5+ - Level 4 RouterOS license included - 1.6Ghz Dual Core Intel Atom Processor - 6 Intel 82574L / 82583V Gigabit controllers (Supports Jumbo Frames) - 1 GB DDR2 800 RAM - 1 mPCI-E internal slot for expansion (3G/4G Wireless Cards) - 2 GB Flash - 2 USB 2.0 Ports - 1 RJ45 Console Port (Includes RJ45 to DB9 Console Cable) - 1 2.5 Open HDD Spaces -- Includes SATA Cables - Use for Web Proxy Cache - MTBF over 100,000 Hours - Low power consumption of 15Watts (+2 Watts per port running) Power: 100-240Vac, .5-3A, 50/60Hz (12Vdc 5A Max) Tested Operational Temperature: -20C to 70C Dimensions: 1.4H x 7.4W x 5.7D Weight: 2.6lb About Baltic Networks Baltic Networks offers a complete line of products and design solutions for broadband wireless and mobile internet. We are an authorized distributor
Re: [WISPA] [Ubnt_users] NS5 issues?
Quick note... v5.3-beta5.7493 solved all our uptime reliability problems. Prior to that, we still had links with occasional disconnects. OSPF session would drop because the CPE stopped passing traffic for a short period. In our case it was a PTMP backbone link using TDMA and Station WDS, with one AP and two CPE, and only 1 CPE demonstrated the problem. Because of it, we were hesitant to use the Rockets on critical backbones. But Rockets have been working beautifully for us, since the above listed upgrade. As far as I was concerned, v5.3-beta5.7493 was good enough for release, I was pleased.. I'm assuming non-beta 5.3 firmware 7782 is as good or better :-) The only thing that is still on our radar as a concern, is that on one or two links, embedded bandwidth test show mismatched speeds in Bi-directional test. For example, down only is 25mb, up only is 25 mb, but with up and down test the down might be 15mb and the up 2mbps. This only occurs with some links. MOst of the links when tested with Bi-directional tests will have the up/down speeds real close for example 12mb down and 12 mb up for a link with 25mb of capacity. We are searching for the reason why some of the links, show disimlar updown speed in bi-directional tests. Same firmware used on all radios, and we have both Rockets and Nano, that show either condition. Its hard to understand why a single direction radio test tests 25mbps up but only deliver 2mb up when in a bi-directional test. Finally what we did was speed limit the radio in the fast direction, to reserve bandwdith for the other. We believe this must have something to do with noise, and protocol traits that allow the best operating direction to gain access to radio to request transmission quicker and more often than the other, thus consuming the bandwidth. Is anyone else noticing that? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Forbes Mercy forbes.me...@wabroadband.com To: Ubiquiti Users Group ubnt_us...@wispa.org; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Ubnt_users] NS5 issues? If you haven't seen Ubiquiti has released the non-beta 5.3 firmware 7782 for it's M series equipment. http://www.ubnt.com/support/downloads Forbes WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question
Fred, Thanks for the data. Point proven. How many WISP in that list? None! From license quantity 300-7000, no WISPs. So who will Aux stations in PArt101 benefit? Only exception might be RADIO DYNAMICS CORPORATION or Comcsearch, that do licenses for third parties. But even then, a minority on the list. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 11:13 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question Tom asked, A relevent question is... What percent of Pre-existing PArt-101 licenses are owned by who? For example, what percentage of PArt101 licenses are owned by Sprint or Fiber tower? Surely without those numbers disclosed, we really cant understand who these auxilary stations really would be helping. If our competitors own most of the PArt101 licenses, Icant agree that helping our competitors be more successful will make WISPs more sucessful. I'd want to see that private independant WISPs and WISP industry own a significantly large enough portion of the PArt101 band already. Can we get these specs? FCC microwave license data is public; you can download the whole database. I've done this a couple of times, most recently a bit more than a year ago. (Warning: It's pretty tricky to work with. It's relational, with a ton of little files, and they just distribute the text files, not the SQL that may generate the most interesting answers. But if you like hacking in Access, it can be fun to try.) From that data, not today's, here is the count of the top 100 licensee names. (L=licensee; CL=licensee contact) entity_name entity_type CountOfcall_sign Verizon Wireless CL 6956 FIBERTOWER CORPORATION CL 3930 New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC L 3450 HOLLAND KNIGHT LLPCL 3389 FiberTower Network Services Corp. L 3265 RADIO DYNAMICS CORPORATION CL 2988 Cingular Wireless LLC CL 2484 METROPOLITAN AREA NETWORKS, INC L 2460 ATT Mobility LLC CL 2270 Keller and Heckman LLP CL 1977 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD L 1480 ComsearchCL 1471 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CL 1461 CLEARWIRE SPECTRUM HOLDINGS III, LLCCL 1416 ATT CORP. CL 1355 Clearwire Spectrum Holdings III, LLCL 1185 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP L 1174 Teligent, Inc. CL 1108 Sensus CL 1090 T-Mobile License LLCL 1064 Consolidated Spectrum Services CL 1003 LOS ANGELES SMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIPL 968 ATT CORP. L 895 Clearwire Corporation CL 798 TELECOM TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT, INC. L 797 McDERMOTT WILL EMERY LLP CL 789 Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC L 786 CLEARWIRE SPECTRUM HOLDINGS II LLC L 775 KATLINK LLC (debtor-in-possession) L 770 KATLINK LLC (debtor-in-possession) O 770 Telecom Transport Management, Inc. CL 752 Covington Burling LLP CL 745 CLEARWIRE SPECTRUM HOLDINGS II LLC CL 737 BNSF Railway Co.L 726 Dow, Lohnes Albertson, PLLC CL 723 BNSF Railway Co. CL 718 Conterra Ultra Broadband, LLC L 679 Conterra Ultra Broadband, LLC CL 677 McDERMOTT, WILL EMERY CL 648 ATT CORP L 615 T-Mobile License LLCCL 608 W. Stephen Cannon, Management Trustee L 599 W. Stephen Cannon, Management Trustee O 599 Dow Lohnes PLLC CL 599 Qwest Corporation L 586 Qwest CorporationCL 576 BACKLINK V, LLC CL 575 BACKLINK V, LLC L 575 ART Licensing Corp. L 571 Constantine Cannon CL 571 Alltel Communications, LLC L 552 WILKINSON BARKER KNAUER, LLPCL 550 TRILLION PARTNERS, INC. CL 538 Trillion Partners, Inc. L 529 BACKLINK IV, LLCL 511 BACKLINK IV, LLC CL 511 BACKLINK III, LLC L 508 BACKLINK III, LLC CL 508 BACKLINK II, LLCL 506 BACKLINK II, LLC CL 506 BACKLINK I, LLC L 505 BACKLINK I, LLC CL 505 CHEVRON USA INC L 495 CBS BROADCASTING INC. L 492 NBC TELEMUNDO LICENSE CO. L 490 Clearwire Spectrum Holdings II, LLC L 484 Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc. L 467 Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc. CL 462 Sprint Nextel CorporationCL 453 GTECH CORPORATION L 452 Stratos Offshore Services Company CL 447 ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. CL 447 Alltel Communications, LLC CL 438 CAPSTAR TX LIMITED PARTNERSHIP L 428 Wiley Rein LLP CL 426 MCI WORLDCOM NETWORK SERVICES INC
Re: [WISPA] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question
So, why are you proposing that we do not challenge the big companies who have vested interests in maintaining the status quo? No one is suggesting that we dont challenge big companies with vested interests. I'm suggesting the opposite. I'm suggesting that we challenge big company spectrum hogs to give back spectrum, if they can use innovative techniques to free it. Nothing in WSI's proposal suggests measures that would result in Pre-existing Spectrum Holders (BIG COMPANIES) to free up spectrum for the industry. Incentives are needed allong with innovation, so big companies will choose innovation not only to help themselves, but to help the industry. Making efficient use of NEW sectrum allocation is only part of the battle. Part of the problem is also how to gain more efficient use of the spectrum already used to free up spectrum for new purposes and applicants. What dynamic would encourage a pre-existing license holder to re-use their own spectrum with Aux stations than apply for a new primary path. Some WISPs heavilly desire a way to obtain licensed last mile spectrum, without auction. But I think they are also being a bit short sighted. I think they may not realize that having licensed spectrum might not benefit them as much as they think, when they run out of high capacity PTP spectrum, and dont have enough PTP spectrum to backhaul their Auxilary stations and cell sites. Then they will be stuck buying transport and transit from the local Tier1 ISPs and Telcos which will charge inflated prices and control the WISP's profit margin anyways. And PTMP becomes less realisitic when we are competing with fiber speed trends. The fact is... WISPs need both adequate PTP and PTMP spectrum. One without the other is a flawed model. I'm not necessarilly against Auxilary stations, I'm just saying its might not be appropriate for all bands. And I'm also suggesting that maybe the dynamics of different geograpghic areas might be different on whether PTP or PTMP spectrum is most needed. We need to find more spectrum to complete 400mbps-800mbps links 10-20 miles long. How do we gain that? Aux station rules would likely incourage the use of smaller antennas on pre-existing backhauls, not keeping larger more directional antennas. Because those that already have PTP spectrum need more PTMP spectrum. And being less efficient (wider beam antennas) with their primary license backhauls will allow the Keyhole to be larger for PTMP Aux stations. At this point I recognize I'm getting a bit repetitive. So I'm gonna try to defer from posting. But the primary purpose of my posts was to point out that some looked at Aux stations as a all good - no disadvantage concept, but there are two valid sides to this topic, and its not all good. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: michael mulcay To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 1:31 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question Fred, Tom DeReggi's comments were business-case based and constructive; basically exploring whether the Commission's NPRM on auxiliary stations would benefit the large operators or WISPs or both. In WSI's opinion the answer is both, but with WISPs getting the higher business growth percentage. Frankly, I do not see anything in your position that would benefit the WISP community. Further, I have nearly thirty years of experience working with the FCC, initially with the Xerox XTEN filing, and later, at Western Multiplex as VP of Business Development I wrote the request for a Rule Making and an Immediate Waiver of the Rules pending a Rule Making to allow unlimited EIRP in the 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz ISM bands. Both were granted (with the 1 for 3 rule at 2.4GHz) and we were able to take Western Multiplex from the Living Dead (profitable with no growth) to a Star Performer (rapid profitable growth), growing the company by 25%, 50% and 100% in three consecutive years. I believe that auxiliary stations can give WISPs the same type of growth opportunity. I believe your last paragraph summarizes your view, so I will address this paragraph. But Part 101 is all about using conventional means. Wrong -- Part 101Fixed Service rules are about the use of spectrum for Fixed Services, fortunately not about conventional means as this would preclude innovation. .(narrow beams, narrow bands) to squeeze in as many PtP users as possible via coordination, not auctions. There are two problems with the conventional approach: 1. Narrower and narrower beams mean larger and larger antennas with the related dramatic increases in CAPEX and OPEX, and even then they are still not perfect. 2. The FS market requirement is for higher and higher speeds requiring higher and higher bandwidths, not narrower and narrower bandwidths. It works pretty well
Re: [WISPA] idea to slow the pain of netflix
Without strict NetNeutrality laws, WISPs would have the flexibilty and leverage to make those kind of deals, for mutual benefit of both parties. However, not sure its cost effective to encourage increased Video usage for just $5 per month. I remember a tradeshow Session with CWLAbs on VOIP like 6 years ago or so, where one of the messages was sure VOIP could be done over wireless 802.11b reliably, but the trade off was that to keep latency where it needed to be, a WISP would only being able to serve 5x less customers per sector. So... sell broadband with 50cust per sector, or 10 custoemrs per sector with VOIP. Sure sectors were 3mb back then and not 30mb, but the point still applies. A 40k stream compared to 1.5mb video stream. If a WISP had a market with only 30 homes within range of a sector, and the sectors were LOS with 30mbps +, sure maybe encouraging video Might be OK. But I'd argue that most markets are larger than that, and most markets dont have all LOS customers. At the end of the day, ability to scale is reduced. Trading $5 block buster revenue for a loss of several a $40/mon sub, when doing the math on capacity usage. The only way I'd justify a BlockBuster type partner ship would be if it was charging pr mb of transfer, where maybe each video rental was $5, and each party got $2.50 per movie rental. Over the month, the revenue would then be more attractive. But then, why even bother to partner? Why not do the math to deterine how much bandwdith a single movie download takes, and then jsut automatically charge your customer that fee, and sell plans with per mb billing. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: support supp...@nitline.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:01 AM Subject: [WISPA] idea to slow the pain of netflix has anyone ever tried to partner with blockbuster say something like if you have a 1Mps service for $39.95 but then partner with the local blockbuster then have 1Mps premier service for $49.95 includes deals at block buster $5 would go to blockbuster a extra $5 would go to the WISP blockbuster gets more business people watch less netflix seems like a win win Please give your input Thanks -- Tim Steele supp...@nitline.com NITLine Support (574) 772-7550 ext 103 www.NITLine.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Anyone running MT RB-750, UBNT gear doing IPv6?
The pressure of government or Industry pushing IPv6 for the sake of the protocol has never worked. Forcing change is difficult. But what we cant ignore is 1) IPv4 available space is disapearing. 2) There are actually benefits to IPv6, where WISPs might want to start using it for their own benefit. Its not so hard to embrase change when someone sees clearly the return on their investment in change. Some facts are... 1. VIDEO can be delviered more cost effectively and efficiently over IPv6, because multicast is native and required for IPv6 operation. 2. Long path (east coast to west coast) latency can often be heavilly reduced, because of the ability to use very large packet/window sizes. This is becoming more important as the GLobal INternet expands. Of course there are many other advantages. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Scott Reed To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Anyone running MT RB-750, UBNT gear doing IPv6? While it is true that the HE tunnel is IPv4 on the HE-facing side, the MT is doing true IPv6 on the internal side. I have had my Windows XP laptop, a couple of MT routers and a Linux server all connected and they do IPv6 just fine and use the HE tunnel as well. Keep in mind, v6 is not new, it is well over 10 years old. Lots of things work better than you may think using v6. On 1/13/2011 7:00 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: When did they add on IPv6? I see on some of my 4.x routers I see VERY simple services - IP discovery, addresses and routes. I think the only real way to deploy ipv6 with MT is on rc7. You're the only brave soul I know of. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Greg Ihnen os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: No, I'm not offended at all. I appreciate your comments and the privilege of being in the forum. When I read what you wrote about how the HE tunnel is IPv4 as far as the MT router is concerned (that had escaped me). But I still would be interested to know if others are doing true IPv6 through the MT RB750/RB450. Greg On Jan 13, 2011, at 7:17 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: My point is that you're a step away from accomplishing what you're asking others for at no consequence. I apologize if I offended you. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MIMO antenna cabling...
In MIMO, Dis-similar Cable length to the dual pol feeds CAN be a problem. Both cables should be the exact same length, or as close as you can make them. This should not be a problem for a 10ft cable. Simply crimp the indoor connector first, since ends terminated really close to each other. Have second cable follow the first cable (maybe even zip tie it to it) and then outside cut the second cable at the point where it reaches the first cable's end. It means not totally using pre-made cables, and having to crimp the outdoor connector manually. Use Ezy connectors to ease abilit to crimp cables up on a roof without the need for a soldering iron. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: MDK To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 2:16 PM Subject: [WISPA] MIMO antenna cabling... I'm in the position of wanting to test the Star-OS MIMO mode, and it occurs to me that connecting an antenna through a few feet of cable may have some pitfalls... I'm going to use dual polarity antennas, and so I'm wondering if I need to use very closely matching cable lengths for the cables that connect the radio to the wire?The board / radio are inside the building, and the antennas will be about 10 feet away, or so. Is this an issue to be concerned about? Anyone know? ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MIMO antenna cabling...
Note: Interference between cards in a case can be a problem, but With MIMO self interference between polarity connectors is less of a problem than with trying to use two seperate radios not MIMO. Let me tell you why I feel this. In theory OFDM for Full modulations needs at minimum 25db isolation between ports. I've seen huge difference in performance using antennas that had 35-40 db isolation between ports compared to 25db. Because of this, when fiorst testing Ubiquiti MIMO I was very concerned about this. I was concerned that a Nano MIMO only had about 16db of isolations between antenna polarities, 19db sector only about 22db isolation, and large sector about 28db isolation between feeds. So, I'd asume the 28db antenna would way out perform the NANO, in regards to polarity isolation, considering JUST a single link. (not considering intference or isolation from other seperate radio links.Obviously the larger antenna has better front to back ratio isolation from other sectors than Nonos that have little.). Any way we recently did tests on a 8 mile Ubiquiti MIMO link, comparing results using each of the three antenna type. (rockets with ext versus Nanos). The goal was to determine whether the NANO could work adequately as a AP sector, IF there were not many APs at that site. The results were Absolutely no difference in performance, regardless of which antenna we used. (again, just talking about polarity isolation, using MIMO on one link, on a clear channel). The Ubiquiti MIMO worked at full capacity even though the isolation between polarities is not very high on a NANO. I was very surprised. I do not know how this will play out StarOS MIMO. The radio system is an ALIX mini-itx and it has 5 radios, It will be very hard to trouble shoot your MIMO link based on MIMO's merit, as with so many radios within the case, it will be really hard to isolate so many cards from each other, to know whether interference is from cards or MIMO polarities. Receiver overload can also be a factor. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 3:37 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MIMO antenna cabling... Beware of interference problems between the cards in the board Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 787.273.4143 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of MDK Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 4:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] MIMO antenna cabling... I'm aware of cable loss issues, but in this case, that's just not an option. LMR-400 has low enough loss at 5 ghz that I don't see any big issue with using it, and the run really isn't all that long. The radio system is an ALIX mini-itx and it has 5 radios, plus a 2 radio ALIX board, all in one enclosure. BTW, it's a metal building, with the radios inside another heavy steel box, required to prevent nearby lightning strikes from shutting it down. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ From: support Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 11:51 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] MIMO antenna cabling... 10ft in RF cable is a Bad Idea I would put you board in a weather proof box and put it next to your antennas On 1/11/2011 1:16 PM, MDK wrote: I'm in the position of wanting to test the Star-OS MIMO mode, and it occurs to me that connecting an antenna through a few feet of cable may have some pitfalls... I'm going to use dual polarity antennas, and so I'm wondering if I need to use very closely matching cable lengths for the cables that connect the radio to the wire?The board / radio are inside the building, and the antennas will be about 10 feet away, or so.Is this an issue to be concerned about?Anyone know? ++Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy541-969-8200 509-386-4589++ WISPA Wants You! Join today!http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Tim Steele supp...@nitline.com NITLine Support (574) 772-7550 ext 103 www.NITLine.net -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] IP Space WHOIS Data Update
Depends... You have to prove that you returned your IPs. That could be as easy as a letter or copying a letter previously sent to your upstream to request the SWIP infor removal, or having none of the IPs on the block responding to Pings. Or showing that your BGP routers or ASN are no longer advertizing routes for those IPs. You are not responsible for whether your upstream is responsible. But again, it boils down to proof, and whats the easiest approach to get results. With ARIN, to speed the process, you dot all your Is and cross all your Ts, because ARIN is overly zealous about formalities. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt lm7...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 6:24 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IP Space WHOIS Data Update We still have IP space in our name that we haven't even had that carrier for 5+ years... Does it affect your ability to get additional space from ARIN? That's my concern. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MIMO antenna cabling...
OK... I just visited the forums and saw StarOS has been hard at work adding N Class support. (Better late than never). I stopped paying attention after around Starv3 v1.3.23 or soThinking EOL was near. I just noticed the opposite on the forums with V3- v1.5.15, and even an ALIX specific version. It appears StarOS's implementation is still playing catch up, but exciting to see that their product is evolving. They definately have the talent on staff to evolve their product to a stable product. Wondering if they are working on adding an embedded Spectrum Scanner software for Ncards yet? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: MDK To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 2:16 PM Subject: [WISPA] MIMO antenna cabling... I'm in the position of wanting to test the Star-OS MIMO mode, and it occurs to me that connecting an antenna through a few feet of cable may have some pitfalls... I'm going to use dual polarity antennas, and so I'm wondering if I need to use very closely matching cable lengths for the cables that connect the radio to the wire?The board / radio are inside the building, and the antennas will be about 10 feet away, or so. Is this an issue to be concerned about? Anyone know? ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question
, because the Auxilarystation financial benefit is limited, and a primary license purchase would need to be justified on the PArt101 primary license need alone. It would also make Part101 licenses more affordable for small companies, because they could spread the cost of a Part101 primary license over 3-4 customer orders. My point here is that There is a huge need for PTP backbone spectrum, that is NOT shared with multiple points. It is a substantion need that every ISP or WISP needs to get high capacity to its remote cell sites. It requires 300-400mbps backbones in today's INternet Broadband world. This PTP spectrum is in shortage. The last thing we want is to repurpose PTP spectrum to PtMP at the expense of it no longer being available for PTP. The last thing we want to do is give the first in LArge Telco an advantage to gain cheap spectrum with out small operators able to do the same, because someone else already owns the license. Instead, I'd argue whether the existing license holder really needs the fulll width license channel they are using. The beauty of Part101 spectrum is most people wont buy it until they think they need it, so its available for those that may need it in the future.. Giving Auxillary station use may change that mentality. In my opiinon, in order to support Auxilary stations, we must assess a fair cost to each Auxilary station license, or give every party the right to deploy equipment in the area that would not cause interference to the primary holder. For example, that area unserved by the primary beam, could be allocated for unlicensed secondary use at low power, at a power level not possible to interfere with the primary. That would allow all providers to gain access to that vacant area. What I think is that owners of PTP licenses dont have enough free capacity to share it with PTMP. Instead, they are likely to just buy two links. One that can be used in PTMP, and one that can be used for dedicated backbone. Thus buyign twice as many licenses than they previously needed. The second thing I see happening is that pre-existing license holders will build fiber to their towers for backhaul, so they no longer need their PArt101 licenses for backhaul. But instead of returning the PArt101 licenses back to the FCC pool of available channels, they will unjustly keep them for auxilary stations a different purpose than the part101 license was originally granted for. This would give pre-existing part101 license holders unfair access to hord spectum meant for another purpose. If these tower gain fiber, the Spectrum should be given back so those that dont have fiber can use the spectrum for PTP. I recogize that Auxilary station may have different models of use. For example, 1 might be to sahre a single radio on a tower between multiple end points. Another example might be to use seperate radios, but have the auxilary station use radios at lower power that would not interfere with the primary link. I'm concerned that license applicants will select wider beam dish antennas at their shared tower side, calculating that they'll gain better coverage for Auxilary stations, thus once against reducing the number of possible PTP links in an area. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: michael mulcay To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 9:03 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question In comments and reply comments to the FCC's NPRM WT Docket 10-153; ATT, Verizon and Comsearch et al are proposing that the FCC impose unnecessary regulation on the operation of radios with adaptive modulation and they oppose the FCC's proposal to allow the use of auxiliary stations in licensed frequency bands below 13GHz. The FCC's auxiliary station proposal would permit the use of small antennas and make it feasible to operate PTP and PTMP. This would make it possible for equipment manufacturers to re-band their unlicensed band equipment to operate in licensed bands with small antennas, thereby lowering licensed microwave CAPEX and OPEX (Exalt has already re-banded their TDD equipment to operate in the 5.9 - 6.4GHz and 10.7 - 11.7GHz licensed bands). With a ruling by the FCC to not impose unnecessary regulation on adaptive modulation and to allow the use of auxiliary stations, WISPs would have the tools to compete in all markets, including the rapidly growing licensed microwave markets for backhaul and access. Power Point slides used by WSI at its December 8th 2010 ex parte meeting with the FCC, opposing additional regulation on adaptive modulation and supporting the use of auxiliary stations, are attached. Mike Wireless Strategies Inc. 831-601-0086 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 11:22 AM To: WISPA
Re: [WISPA] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question
On a License application, one must state the modulation that they will use or state that they will use adaptive modulation. Legally one is supposed to configure their equipment for what was approved. And there are reasons for that, regarding the freq Coordination. For example If in QAM 256, one must have a lower noise floor and a higher signal to acheive reliabilty. For example... a link might state to operate at -35 and as low as -64 in rain fade, and maintain a SNR of 30db, so no one else can generate over a -94 noise floor, or they would interfere. If in QPSK, one might say they can operate at a sensitivity as low as -90. and only need 10db of SNR. That would mean either that Others could deploy if they did not generate more than -100 noise floor, or that if the Primary link operated at -35, as low as -64 in rain fade and maintain SNR of 10db, that the someone else could deploy without causing interference if theey did not generate a noise floor over -75. Either way, there is a big difference between -75 and -100 and -94. What level can a new license holder broadcast at, if the specs of other license holders are not consistent? If a licensee was able to put there gear on any modulations, it would require others new licensees to plan for worst case, and not generate noise higher than -100, limiting them. Thus it would only be fair if the provider actually used Adaptive modulation. The question them come ups, if one states adaptive modulation, but then does not use it, what harm is there and who would know ? After all it could allow the provider to also lower there transmit in non-rain cases. If someone states 256QAM, and does Adaptive modulation anyway, isn't it just giving risk to the one that stated incorrectly? So yes, I support allowing flexibilty in setting adaptive modulation or not, after the fact. The original license holder should be able to maintain flexibilty. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: michael mulcay To: sc...@brevardwireless.com ; 'WISPA General List' Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 7:54 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question Adaptive modulation is the subject of an FCC NPRM WT Docket 10-153. Can you lock the equipment in a non adaptive mode? Mike Wireless Strategies Inc 831-601-0086 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Carullo Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 2:46 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question Comsearch has this to say on one of the sites in coordination, anyone know what it is supposed to mean? They are closed now, I'm not being patient sry :) Path Warnings Document FCC Rule Part(s) Description Result / Action N/A site1 Radio Equipped with Adaptive Modulation. Review Radio Parameters N/A site2 Radio Equipped with Adaptive Modulation. Review Radio Parameters 101.31 (b) (1) (ii) site1 - ASR may be required based on C/L Height. Verify/Change Antenna Height or File with FAA N/A site1 Failed Glide Slope or Height requirement. Verify/Change Antenna Height or File with FAA Thanks Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Qualcomm agreed to acquire Atheros Communications for $3.1 billion in cash
Yes, it could. But then again maybe it wont. Why rock the boat by changing price or supply when a product is dominating the industry as-is? We'll see. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: John Scrivner j...@scrivner.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 9:24 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Qualcomm agreed to acquire Atheros Communications for $3.1 billion in cash Isn't every Ubnt radio sold powered by Atheros chips? I wonder if this could mean a future issue for our supply of low cost radios? Scriv On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Brough Turner r...@ashtonbrooke.com wrote: Qualcomm agreed to acquire Atheros Communications for $3.1 billion in cash, seeking to fill a hole in its chip-making operations. Atheros's shares closed Tuesday at $44, compared with the $45 offer price. The target's stock had surged Tuesday following news that Qualcomm was close to making the deal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704405704576063453274665320.html?mod=djemalertTECH another article (not behind a registration or pay wall): http://www.slashgear.com/qualcomm-buy-atheros-in-3-1bn-ubiquitous-connectivity-deal-05123321/ Thanks, Brough netBlazr - Free your broadband Mobile: 617-285-0433 Skype: brough WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.
their first. So summary of recommendation 1) Check contractual protections in both WISP's grain tower contracts. 2) Try each picking a unique exclusive polarity for their radios. 3) ONly Deploy AP and BAckhaul radios that have built-in spectrum analyzers. (Ubiquiti-M or Trango Tlink). If using Ubiquiti and MIMO, for Rockets cap off chain 1 antenna to disable, or using Bullets that are single pol MIMO. 4) Use 5.2/4 for backhauls everywhere possible. 5) Where non-interference cant be acheived at 2.4G, use 3.65 and 900Mhz. Also another approach IF coexistance can be acheived. Then you are back at aquisition discussion. How can aquisition be avoided. Two ways... 1) AP sharing or 2) Customer swapping. 1- Come to the realizing that two tower cant exist next to each other in the same market. Agree to share your APs with him, and and vice versa, at an equal bi-direction monitary rate to each other. Some APs will get taken down. You will control some towers and he'll control others. But neither will loose control of their customer. 2- All your customers next to his tower you sell to him, and his customers next to you he sells to you. Do it on a 1 to 1 trade. And stop tradding when there is no more interference. Pay the same rate bi-directionally, so no dolalrs have to change hands. Then its just a few phone calls... Hey... let me introduce you to your new provider, you'll get bills from him now. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Robert West To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 9:55 AM Subject: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy. I'm throwing this out there for another WISP to see if anyone has any experience with something like this or any ideas. Within the past year this operator was asked by a grain operator to bring broadband to all of their grain legs. The operator had the idea of, instead of charging the grain dealer for the install, to offer the broadband for free in exchange for using the legs for access points and sell the service to local customers. The grain dealer agreed, obviously, so he built out a fairly good sized network. For equipment he is using all Ubiquiti radios and CPE units and with Pac grids and Bullets for his back haul and Rockets with sectors at the APs. Network has been working perfectly. That's the setup. Now for the trouble. There was and still is an existing WISP in the area. 60 customers or so. (Grain dealer is associated with OLD wisp in a roundabout way but chose not to use him for whatever reason) It's reported that boy is in love with Bullets and OMNI antennas on all of his APs. For CPEs he goes for large grids and Bullets, I believe. He also pushes it as far as he can go, 5 miles or more on those OMNI APs. New operator is using 5.8 for Back Haul, 2.4 for CPE. Old WISP calls new WISP almost immediately. Interference taking down his network. New wisp changes channels to those suggested by old wisp. Calls again, interference. New wisp changes channels again. Another phone call, he changes yet again. Then drops down to 10MHz channels to give more room. Still the phone calls. For a time it was every evening he would have to deal with old wisp and still he wouldn't be happy. Old wisp then starts calling the owners of the grain legs raising hell and bad mouthing new wisp. Leg owner calls new wisp, What's Up? Old wisp then wants to sell his network to new wisp for fantasy cash. I tell new wisp, Chill, don't even think of buying that idiot and his duct tape network. New wisp then buys a 3.65 license but we all know how long that sucker takes and the limitations it has with number of channels and the $$ premium per unit. New wisp has been very nice to all parties and has done, from what I see, about all he can do. He's within all power regulations and has bent over backwards to every request put to him by this guy. (One of the last comments from old WISP was that he would get a sector and, in so many words, blast him and take down his network) Now the latest. Old wisp has contacted the leg owners and has put together a meeting between old wisp, all of new wisps grain leg owners, new wisp and two outside parties, one of which is related to old wisp boy. New Wisp is at a loss to what more can be accomplished other than old wisp upgrade his OMNIs to sectors in order to isolate the RF away from a competing channel. Anyone have any solid resolutions that he can throw out to old wisp boy ? Surely someone here has been there before. Thanks! Robert West Just Micro Digital Services Inc. 740-335-7020 -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http
Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.
I dont have the time either, I'm just lazy. And its easier to write, than face the reality that I should really be working :-) After News years, I'll probably disappear for a while, work is piling up. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Chuck Hogg To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 5:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy. Tom: I'm always impressed with the time you take in writing the responses you do. I wish I had that kind of time, I barely have enough time to read them. Regards, Chuck On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote: Robert, Still missing some relevent detail... New WISP uses 2.4 sectors. Is the Old WISP boy also using 2.4G sectors? As well, is the Rocket gear Single Pol or MIMO dual pol gear? Expecially, is the new provider's 5.8G PTP and Rocket Sectors MIMO? Legally- Part15 means everyone must deploy assuming the risk that there could be interference. There are two potential outcomes. 1) Coordination and cooperation or 2) survival of the fittest. This might also come down to who has the best contract with the grain towers. Whether anyone gained solid non-interference clauses or spectrum exclusivity clauses in their contracts, versus hand shake deals. I dont agree with the assessment that the problem is the Old Boy's bad design or unwillingness to change. (see below for justification) The fact is, he was there first and had the flexibility to design optimally for his need, and there was really no need for him to design for the new providers need, becaue the new provider did not exist at that time. At the end oif the day, he has pre-existing custoemrs that need him and that he needs revenue from, and he isn;t going to bail on that pre-existing money tree, that has been in motion for years. He will fight harder than the new provider because, he has more at stake to protect, even though it may be on a smaller scale. Both parties are equally obligated to build their networks as interference resilent as possible. But there are multiple dissimilar approaches to accomplishing that that is jsut as good as another. So who's to say what is ultimately the best practice. Its tough for a company who has built a network on a single pol and 20Mhz design, and change to a dual pol 10Mhz design. Whats less efficient? Dual Omnis each single pol, or two sectors with dual pol? Omnis are not always bad, IF there is adequate physical obstruction isolation between grain towers, and using polarity as a mechanism of interference isolation also helps. If some else is operating on 20Mhz, a new provider on 10Mhz may not help, because it still steps on half the 20Mhz channel. I'd argue that the best way to coexist is to get rid of the Dual Pol on the New provider's Mimo rockets, IF THEY are using Dual POl MIMO. If Old BOy is using Omnis everywhere he likely is using Verticle pol everywhere. So, New WISP should physically CAP the verticle pol on their Rocket radios, and leave Chain Zero on Horizontal polarity only. Then move new WISP back to 20Mhz if you need to to regain the capacity. Problem solved. But if you rely on polarity as the mechanism of isolation, it simplifies everything, so much easier than channel coordination. Remember that Polarity isolation often has much better isolation than adjacent channel isolation. With OFDM you really need 20db of SNR min, and polarity isolation will get you that. Its hard to get that without polarity isolation. Bottom line is, if you both choose a different polarity, and stick to it, you wont interfere with each other, just with yourself. But, self-interference is much easier to isolate, when you know everything about your own network, and can make the best choices and trade off for your network. And you can make those changes without answering or coordinating with someone else. Thats the benefit of relying on Pol isolation. If old boy is using Omni, and new WISP is using sectors, its a perfect situation for old boy to take Verticle and New WISP to take Horizontal. Dont get me wrong, I love Ubiquiti MIMO when I can use it, but MIMO has a major flaw, and that is co-existing with others is much more difficult, expecially if they are using 20Mhz gear. I hate to say it, but ethically, I'd side with Old WISP boy. Comming in new with MIMO gear would surely going to cause interference to pre-existing deployments, and the MIMO would restrict your flexibility to resolve. If a new provider came in with UNiquiti standard (non MIMO model), Id call it even more irresponsbile. Bulilt-in spectrum analyzers are NEEDED in today's day and age to adeqautely co-exist. To be honest... I really think the burden to prevent interference belongs to the new installer during installation
Re: [WISPA] From ATT public policy blog- Comcast vs Level3
Exactly! WISPs need to build their percieved value in the eyes of other ISPs. It all has to start somewhere. One way is to start peering at any level, with who ever you can, regardless of whether its really again. One measurement is traffic volume, unfortunately, most WISPs aren't favors comparing their low volume the he high volume of their desired peer, regardless of the ratio. One measure is a national foot print interconnected or not. If you have atleast 3 diverse interonnected national POPs, you can argue that your network will carry the traffic the majority of the path, not the upstream/peer's network. Most small WISPs dont go hear because... Internet transit is usually pretty cheap, meaning cheaper to pay for, than to pay to keep 3 diverse NOCs operational. But even if small, I believe WISPs do deserve to get paid just as much as the next guy. But we have to sell that value well enough that a prospective buyer is willing to buy it. My opinion is that providers really need to be at the 1Gig level to justify colocation and peering. But getting paid peering is not a given, it still then takes work to justify why one should get paid. I personally, think that WISPs have a very strong justification That we serve a unique market that other ISP cant serve, which resources to serve are in shortage. Its a market that we can successfully deliver to content providers, that content providers can uniquely profit from. They should be able to justify paying us. I like to point to AOL, one of the big success stories on getting other companies to pay them for access to eyeballs. The got comanies to pay them billion, and the speed was only dialup. In a free market, we'd have the right to explore what our value is or isn't. I agree fully with Fred's insightful comment. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: can...@believewireless.net p...@believewireless.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] From ATT public policy blog- Comcast vs Level3 I guess what I don't understand about this whole thing is how much traffic one ISP is sending another. So, if you send me too much traffic, you must pay. I think nearly every WISP on this list is receiving more traffic than we are sending AND we are paying for it. Why are they not paying us? WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] High Power RF close-proximity on tower question
Ouch. I can just feel the flesh boiling. Probably have to wear a radiation suite to work on your radio, being that close to that. I'd predict the Ubiquitits would get severe receiver overload without filters added. Any chance of moving your antennas further away? Or the FM antennas further away? Dont you have a non-interference clause? I'd think that would protect against receive overload also. Can you put the expense on the FM antenna guy, to buy your filters, since you were there first? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Scott Carullo To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:30 PM Subject: [WISPA] High Power RF close-proximity on tower question Ok, I've dealt with up to about 20KW on FM transmitter 20 feet away and dealt with it decently. Now I'm told one of our installs of gear on a tower is about to get a 100KW 20ft above my gear and a TV antenna 20ft below it at 700KW channel 39 I think. Anyone have gear running close to this kind of high-power antennas? Am I screwed or will I be able to have my equipment work int his RF environment? Assume I did everything right (grounded metal box, shielded cable soldered drain wires, ferrite cores on the cables etc...). Thanks Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless
It was a win because the FCC did not decide to go after title-II reclassification. Taking authority under Title I will only allow limited authority in my opinion, and their authority and decissions could be challenged in court. Considering that many believe that titleI does not give the authority. So likely FCC would take a more conservative appproach, while wallking the thin line between what they can do and not do without pissing someone off to go to court. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: MDK To: WISPA General List Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 7:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless No, we LOST. You see, once they have the power, they have the power.It is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get partial exemption. I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this. As far as I'm concerned it's come and arrest me, coppers and I will damn well NOT comply. And if we all did that. They'd just give up. But we're too chicken to stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently. I don't know when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ From: Joe Fiero Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:12 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless It's good to see all our efforts pay off. REUTERS updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55 WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their networks, senior agency officials said Monday. Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns with the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month, but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are expected to vote in favor of the rules. Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers based on Internet usage. The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband, Genachowski said in a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of development than terrestrial Internet service. -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] From ATT public policy blog- Comcast vs Level3
such arrangements are appropriate when both parties equally benefit from the relationship.), Level 3 has apparently changed its tune on the importance of balance in exchanging traffic (as did Cogent in the other direction when it de-peered Limelight in 2007 - are you keeping track of all this?). Comcast asserts that Level 3 has stated its volumes will double in the coming months and its traffic balance ratios will increase from +2:1 to 5:1, similar to Cogent's increasing traffic imbalance with Level 3 in 2005. And Comcast has responded by telling Level 3 that it does not qualify for the existing terms of their peering arrangement, just like Level 3 said to Cogent 5 years ago. So why is the imbalance suddenly increasing? Earlier this month Level 3 won some of NetFlix's streaming business which may have something to do with the growing traffic imbalance. I am confident that the CDN providers Level 3 won this business from had been paying Comcast to deliver this same content to Comcast's customers. But whatever the reason, balance (or imbalance) in a peering relationship is important for the very same reason Level 3 claimed five years ago. When traffic flows to a broadband provider increase, the provider has to augment its infrastructure and build out more bandwidth to carry that traffic to its customers. An arrangement where one provider sends far more traffic to another provider than it receives, without some additional compensation, is simply not mutually or equally beneficial - instead it's a subsidy just as Level 3 described it five years ago. We all know that distributing content costs real money. In the brick and mortar world, GigaOm estimates that Netflix's current postal distribution cost exceeds $700 million annually (not an insignificant number for $2.5B revenue business) - a cost that will be avoided (although different other costs will be incurred) if it abandons the snail mail system. However, there is a significant and growing cost to deliver that high-bandwidth content over broadband networks to consumers too. Ultimately, someone is going to have pay for those costs. And while Level 3 and perhaps content providers might prefer a model whereby all of Comcast's broadband subscribers collectively pay for that cost in the form of higher broadband Internet access rates (irrespective of whether they subscribe to Netflix or some other high-bandwidth content service), that model is not necessarily consumer friendly. If Comcast prevails in this negotiation with Level 3 (and apparently now the NetRoots community), some of those infrastructure costs will be passed onto Level 3 and thus NetFlix who will presumably incorporate those costs into subscription rates for the consumers who actually use its service, just as it does with the +$700M postal distribution costs it incurs today. Isn't that a more rational way to approach this? Seems like common sense to me. But irrespective of how this dispute ultimately gets resolved, it is decidedly NOT a net neutrality issue. Comcast simply wants to be compensated for the additional volume of traffic that Level 3 is delivering to Comcast, which Comcast has to deliver to its customers. Comcast doesn't care whether that traffic is video or music or email or web pages. So, this really has nothing at all to do with net neutrality despite the fact that Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc 301-515-7774 IntAirNet - Fixed Wireless Broadband WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Internet Backbone
Tier1 providers between cities... 40-80GB. Once long haul dark fiber is purchased, why limit it, when the tier1 can just put in the biggest optical router offered. The larger reseller blended transit providers serving colos typically are buying 10GB connections, and breaking them up.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt lm7...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 3:51 PM Subject: [WISPA] Internet Backbone Question out of curiosity. What does Tier1 carrier have for bandwidth between a couple major cities? Say between Chicago and St. Louis? How many Gigabit typically? I know it likely varies and there will be multiple routes but I was looking for an educated guesstimate. I imagine there would need to be a good deal of surplus to cover any fiber cuts requiring them to route around. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Free Press Floods the FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions
ATT/Verizion/WISPS should be aggressively targeting Comcast subscribers with much better rates, and peering with L3/Netflix everywhere. This is what an ASN and your own IP space buys you. Well thats part of the problem. Do we really have that option? L3 and Netflix often deny peering requests from smaller operators. They dont let us play, and dont always allow us the option to share in the savings. So what do you think NetFlix's mentality is If we were to want to interconnect Would they ask us to eat the cost to build out to them, or would they eat the csot to build out to us, or would we share the csot and meet in the middle? Everyone thinks they are more valluable than the small local provider, and the small local provider usually gets leveraged into paying the cost to interconnect. Why shouldn't WISPs have peering relationships direct with NetFlix, where either party pays the other for having higher push traffic? Why are we not worthy to be the recipient of compinsation in peering? Dont misunderstand me, I do not mean to stereo type and I am not saying for sure that NetFlix or any content provider aren't willing to peer or talk about fair terms. I'm just saying, who's in control of whether it will occur? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles N Wyble char...@knownelement.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 2:48 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Free Press Floods the FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12/14/2010 11:29 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Oldest trick in the book, attach a position to an ideological word that people cant disagree with. Who can disagree with freedom. Little does the public know they are supporting a position that could reduce freedom and possibly even destroy their freedom of choice, as they signon to positition that will reduce speeds, increase costs, reduce investment, and destroy small competitive providers. Freedom really means no regulation, so providers can have the freedom to build networks without unnecessary beurocracy and burdens. Freedom to allow people to build businesses based without strings attached. Um no regulation? Really? So if I build out a large cable plant I can charge whatever I want, deny access to people, sue anyone who tries to compete into the ground, not upgrade my infrastructure and provide best effort 911 service? I know that many in the operations community oppose regulation, but it's a two edged sword. Ironically, Google is one of the largest advocates of NEtNEutrality but yet one of the largeset threats to freedom. NetNEutrality is best purposed to stop abuse of power by those with market power. I'd argue Google has majority market power beyond that of any single access provider. Google has more eyeballs and and steers Internet traffic more than any other entity. What would happen if we made a Save the Small Provider, the real Open Internet or Vote Content Neutrality not NetNeutrality for an Open Internet would it get a top indexing on search engines? Or would the Save the INternet Pro NetNEutrality get the top Indexing? Google has the power allow consumers to see the point of view of content providers, but to prevent their access to view Access provider's point of view. On a critical vote week like this week, Google has power to censor what consumers can find and have access to. What preventing Google from doing that right now, and compromising our Free country? Google is an advertising company. A very successful one. Having done extensive work in the advertising industry, I can tell you that censorship is the least of your worries. The threats to freedom come from the amount of information that is collected and collated on individuals and used to target advertising. Yes they possess extensive capabilities to support their distribution channel. Yes that channel is getting more and more extensive on a regular basis (search/maps/mail/mobile/tv). They have an open peering policy. They actively encourage people to peer with them and work out the best traffic engineering policies. How many folks here have peered with google and built TE policies? I know of at least one WISP that has. I have worked for organizations that exchanged massive amounts of traffic with google/microsoft and other large brands. There is a massive amount of things that happen behind the scenes, when you move from the access to distribution layer. Most people that speak publicly in the operations community are at the access layer (running eyeball networks). Very few people from the content provider/distribution space speak publicly. I am limited in what I can say, as I'm bound by various NDA. However I can say that the content providers and eye ball networks are interested in working out a good deal
Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] [IMPORTANCE LEVEL: HIGH] Network Neutrality Ex Parte Letter Template for Operators to file
Fred, Excellent Filing. The big risk is abuse of power by those with dominent market power, thus possibly the need for some targeted regulation. But I'm not aware of any WISPs that has scaled large enough to have dominent market power to the extent to become a risk to consumers or other providers. I asked for Fixed Wireless to be exempt from NetNeutrality restrictions simply because there is no market need to regulate a small provider. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 5:02 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] [IMPORTANCE LEVEL: HIGH] Network Neutrality Ex Parte Letter Template for Operators to file At 12/14/2010 08:37 AM, RickH wrote: I appreciate you guys putting this all together so quickly. I filed mine but it would be a good idea if this call went out again with step by step instructions. TOPIC: Treatment of Fixed Wireless Broadband in Open Internet Decision to be made at the FCC Commission Meeting on Dec. 21st, 2010. DEADLINE: Tuesday, December 14, 2010, 5:30 PM EST IMPORTANCE LEVEL: HIGH Oh, foolish me. I thought you said 5:00 PM. I had 32 minutes to spare after filing! ;-) I guess I'm not an early bird. Since I'm not a WISP per se but do like to file in FCC proceedings, I threw this together. It basically says that ISPs per se, including all WISPs, should not be regulated, but that dominant wireline providers, like ILECs, should make wholesale facilities available, and that's the only neutrality required, or probably even likely to withstand judicial scrutiny. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consultinghttp://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Broken Dragonwave
Yes, there are more cost effective alternatives to repair, if you have time. First, there is a third party company that will repair your modems or sell you refurbished modems for your IDUs. I ran into one not to long ago, unfortuantely I forget who it was off the top of my head. (But I'll try to find out) I'm assuming you have the Split archetecture models. What model do you have? I might have a resource for you. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Kevin Sullivan To: WISPA General List Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 5:43 PM Subject: [WISPA] Broken Dragonwave We bought a used Dragonwave link, and it appears that both ends have broken radio modems. Dragonwave wants $2,000 to replace each modem card assembly, for a total of $4k. Does anyone know what that is, and if it is possible to repair without paying Dragonwave unholy amounts of cash? Thanks, Kevin -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Free Press Floods the FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions
Oldest trick in the book, attach a position to an ideological word that people cant disagree with. Who can disagree with freedom. Little does the public know they are supporting a position that could reduce freedom and possibly even destroy their freedom of choice, as they signon to positition that will reduce speeds, increase costs, reduce investment, and destroy small competitive providers. Freedom really means no regulation, so providers can have the freedom to build networks without unnecessary beurocracy and burdens. Freedom to allow people to build businesses based without strings attached. Ironically, Google is one of the largest advocates of NEtNEutrality but yet one of the largeset threats to freedom. NetNEutrality is best purposed to stop abuse of power by those with market power. I'd argue Google has majority market power beyond that of any single access provider. Google has more eyeballs and and steers Internet traffic more than any other entity. What would happen if we made a Save the Small Provider, the real Open Internet or Vote Content Neutrality not NetNeutrality for an Open Internet would it get a top indexing on search engines? Or would the Save the INternet Pro NetNEutrality get the top Indexing? Google has the power allow consumers to see the point of view of content providers, but to prevent their access to view Access provider's point of view. On a critical vote week like this week, Google has power to censor what consumers can find and have access to. What preventing Google from doing that right now, and compromising our Free country? What makes content providers a better steward of Freedom than Access providers? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Cameron Crum To: WISPA General List Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 4:32 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Free Press Floods the FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions I just sent ours in. Cameron On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Rick Harnish rharn...@wispa.org wrote: While normally an ally of WISPA, in this case Free Press is taking a position that is opposite WISPs feelings on this topic. This is a MAJOR reason while it is absolutely essential that ALL WISPs take the time to file by 5:00 PM tomorrow. I have attached the WISPA filing and a template to use. Once you have customized the letter, please make a .pdf copy or a .doc file and upload it at the following website. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=rhroc. If you choose not to use the WISPA template letter but want to write your own comments, you can either follow the previous procedure or use the Express filing method at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=nc5cd. The proceeding number ET Docket Nos. 09-191 and WC Docket No. 07-52. You can add the second Proceeding Number by clicking Add Proceeding. Free Press Floods FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions Group wants Commission to toughen up chairman's proposed compromise order By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting Cable, 12/13/2010 11:45:52 AM Free Press is killing some trees to try and save the Internet. Free Press says that SavetheInternet.com volunteers will be hand-delivering 2 million petitions to the FCC, with volunteers making the trek every hour on the hour until sometime Tuesday. Free Press wants the FCC to toughen up the chairman's proposed compromise order expanding and codifying its network openness rules. The order does not rely on reclassifying broadband access under some common carrier regs (Title II), allows for specialized services, and does not apply most of them to wireless broadband. The FCC is planning to vote on the order Dec. 21, which is still subject to edits and emendations as the commissioners vet the draft. Free Press calls the chairmen's proposal a toothless effort that give[s] just about everything to giant phone and cable companies, and leave[s] Internet users with almost nothing. That two million are not all in response to the compromise FCC proposal, but represent the names on a number of different petitions on net neutrality cirucluated over the past couple of years, according to Free Press' Craig Aaron. Copies of the different petitions are being attached to the appropriate list of names, approximately 50,000 per boxful, which are being delivered hourly to the commission through Tuesday. To monitor the progress of the data drop, go to marathon.savetheinternet.com Respectfully, Rick Harnish Executive Director WISPA 260-307-4000 cell 866-317-2851 WISPA Office Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] WISPA Files Ex Parte on Network Neutrality
Well, currently there is no law to force a WISP to offer service to a specific customer. I believe that one way to fight it is to simply not comply. Remove any reference to what your Network Management practices exactly are if the conflict with allowed NetNEutrality laws, the opposite of truth in advertsing. If any end use complains, simply disconnect their service at their term end. Tell them that you ran out of network capacity, and were forced to remove some subscribers on a random basis, and they were one of them by chance. Let them complain, I believe it would be very unlikely for the FCC to enforce anything, and very hard to prove any wrong doing was done on the WISP's part. Just like the Soup Nazi on Seinfeld. You complain... No Soup for You. Just dont say it out loud. My point here is... It wont be legal to block or limit speed. But is it illegal to simply get rid of a subscriber? Cable COs under Franchises, or ILECs under Monopoly Regulation may have trouble with the Law if they try not to serve specific customers. But I'm not sure that WISPs will have that same problem. I guess what I'm uncertain of is what it will mean if a WISP is subject to Title 1 legislation. Will a WISP become liable for discrimination cases, if Heavy USers become looked at as a class of Consumers? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] WISPA Files Ex Parte on Network Neutrality At 12/10/2010 10:45 PM, Rick Harnish wrote: CW, It appears as though they may be backing off trying to control billing methods. However, they are pushing heavily to void the ability for WISPs to manage their network traffic. That will mean no QOS, no bursting, no blocking of websites or controlled traffic flows. We all know what the impact of this decision will have on our businesses. Or they will allow reasonable network management, where reasonable is defined by whoever has the biggest law firm. For Verizon and ATT, anything goes. For somebody they don't like, fuggedabout it. I do however note the relatively small amount of leverage they have over most WISPs, who are entirely under Part 15. What little authority the FCC may claim to have over content (and this Order WILL be enjoined and thrown out in court, probably just after the next election, since it's purely a political game) comes from claims of consumer protection, based on whether you are doing what they claim you claim to be doing (i.e., what it means to be using the word Internet). So one option for WISPs is to simply stop selling Internet service per se and start selling online differentiated data services with managed Internet access instead. It sounds like a joke but then so is the whole NN proceeding, so you fight it with their terms rather than on their terms. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Anyone else playing with MT's new PCQ Bursting?
Re: [WISPA] Anyone else playing with MT's new PCQ Bursting?You have to be careful with Bursting because it can sometime result in choppy performance for a client, and make it appear to them that their service is randomly working. There can be two reasons... 1) To much time given to one session, which makes others choppy. or 2) The burst speed and the regular limited speed are to far away from each other, so the change is to noticeable, when engaged. If you use Bursting, I'd suggest putting the Burst configuration on your own circuit first, so you can see if it cahnges the feel of your service in a positive or negative way. I personally dont choose burst method of bandwidth management, I prefer to allow full speed, and then reduce speed as required equally by a Fair Weighted Queueing technique. However, each is to their own. And Bursting does have it place for some purposes. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Justin Wilson To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 2:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Anyone else playing with MT's new PCQ Bursting? Bursting is wonderful. On a few networks we manage we have bursting setup to allow the customer enough time to run 2 speed tests back to back to get their full speed and then it drops them down. Usually this is about half their max speed. Justin -- Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net Aol Yahoo IM: j2sw http://www.mtin.net/blog - xISP News http://www.twitter.com/j2sw - Follow me on Twitter Wisp Consulting - Tower Climbing - Network Support -- From: Greg Ihnen os10ru...@gmail.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:17:12 -0430 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Anyone else playing with MT's new PCQ Bursting? Is anyone else playing with MT's PCQ bursting? I'm curious what numbers people are using as far as burst time, and the burst threshold (with respect to the queue's max limit). I have some queues which I'm setting the burst threshold nearly equal to or equal to the queue's max limit, so if the average isn't very near or at the queue's max limit it will burst over. It seems like the bursting would allow critical services to run better (as bandwidth is stolen away from non-critical services) and give the network the appearance of having more bandwidth than it would without bursting. Greg WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes
WOW you are lucky Checkout my availabilty, in the one area I was hoping to have atleast one channel, which is an agricultural reserve full of tall trees Available Channels Fixed TVBD 10m HAAT: 128.75 meters View Full Map 2 19 36 3 20 37 4 21 38 5 22 39 6 23 40 7 24 41 8 25 42 9 26 43 10 27 44 11 28 45 12 29 46 13 30 47 14 31 48 15 32 49 16 33 50 17 34 51 18 35 HAAT also appears to be a killer preventing use in areas of rolling hills w/ trees, most needy of 700Mhz. When in many cased Downtilt could have been a viable solutions, in some bands. But, hey, thank god for rules that helped low power personal portable devices. At 40mw max, I might be able to use 3-4 channels. 19 36 3 20 37 4 21 38 5 22 39 6 23 40 7 24 41 8 25 42 9 26 43 10 27 44 11 28 45 12 29 46 13 30 47 14 31 48 15 32 49 16 33 50 17 34 51 18 35 So, 40mw can get me a few feet away, maybe to the ground of the tower :-( BUT thats why BRianWebster's idea of Dual antenna radios (one for high gain for recieve and one low gain for transmit) could be the savior. The ONLY possible useful use of the band would be to use such a radio. But will 40mw upper band channels be any better than 4watt 900mhz? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes According to that page, only 2, 5, and 6 are available for me. Assuming their data is correct, TVWS are almost not even worth my time. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 9/25/2010 12:14 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: 8 Channels around here for me... http://www.spectrumbridge.com/products-services/whitespaces/showmywhitespace/single-location-search.aspx Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Jeromie Reevesjree...@18-30chat.net wrote: That was where my question was going. 12mhz could let you use a 10mhz channel. Yes we are used to half duplex because that is what most people make. I would love full duplex and with all the mimo gear it just my be possible to do it at a end user acceptable rate. Most of the area I am interested in have 1 block of 4 channels. One has 2, and a 3rd has 10! I am very interested in find the exact contours for that one and what kind of bonding might be possible. Even just 40mhz Rockets would make me happy for a while. On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Mike Hammettwispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: That's another thing to remember... to have any usable throughput you're going to have to find several channels together. With UBNT gear, 6 MHz only yields 15 megabits. MT's N might double that. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 9/25/2010 4:25 AM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: Ah much better. Now, if a town has say 4 channels open (in a row) like 2 3 4 5, can you use 3 and 4, keeping 2 and 5 as the guard channels? or will you need to pick 3 or 4? On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Blair Davisthe...@wmwisp.net wrote: It is broke. Usehttp://www.spectrumbridge.com instead. Josh Luthman wrote: I go to it and it seems there are no available channels anywhere I search. Maybe they're working on it? Maybe I'm doing something wrong? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Jeromie Reevesjree...@18-30chat.net wrote: Am I the only one its not working for? I get script errors like 'Server Error in '/WSWebGUI' Application.' (and more info snipped). Scripts are turned on in FireFox on Linux and Windows, and IE does not have any changes from default (it is never used). Clicking on channels jumps it to the default view. Clicking 'Show nearby incumbents' always results in a error. Using addresses in the search works, displays the bing map
Re: [WISPA] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes
OOps. looks like the HTML tables were lost in transmission. To translate no channels were available. except for 4 of if at 40mw.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 1:03 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes WOW you are lucky Checkout my availabilty, in the one area I was hoping to have atleast one channel, which is an agricultural reserve full of tall trees Available Channels Fixed TVBD 10m HAAT: 128.75 meters View Full Map 2 19 36 3 20 37 4 21 38 5 22 39 6 23 40 7 24 41 8 25 42 9 26 43 10 27 44 11 28 45 12 29 46 13 30 47 14 31 48 15 32 49 16 33 50 17 34 51 18 35 HAAT also appears to be a killer preventing use in areas of rolling hills w/ trees, most needy of 700Mhz. When in many cased Downtilt could have been a viable solutions, in some bands. But, hey, thank god for rules that helped low power personal portable devices. At 40mw max, I might be able to use 3-4 channels. 19 36 3 20 37 4 21 38 5 22 39 6 23 40 7 24 41 8 25 42 9 26 43 10 27 44 11 28 45 12 29 46 13 30 47 14 31 48 15 32 49 16 33 50 17 34 51 18 35 So, 40mw can get me a few feet away, maybe to the ground of the tower :-( BUT thats why BRianWebster's idea of Dual antenna radios (one for high gain for recieve and one low gain for transmit) could be the savior. The ONLY possible useful use of the band would be to use such a radio. But will 40mw upper band channels be any better than 4watt 900mhz? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes According to that page, only 2, 5, and 6 are available for me. Assuming their data is correct, TVWS are almost not even worth my time. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 9/25/2010 12:14 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: 8 Channels around here for me... http://www.spectrumbridge.com/products-services/whitespaces/showmywhitespace/single-location-search.aspx Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Jeromie Reevesjree...@18-30chat.net wrote: That was where my question was going. 12mhz could let you use a 10mhz channel. Yes we are used to half duplex because that is what most people make. I would love full duplex and with all the mimo gear it just my be possible to do it at a end user acceptable rate. Most of the area I am interested in have 1 block of 4 channels. One has 2, and a 3rd has 10! I am very interested in find the exact contours for that one and what kind of bonding might be possible. Even just 40mhz Rockets would make me happy for a while. On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Mike Hammettwispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: That's another thing to remember... to have any usable throughput you're going to have to find several channels together. With UBNT gear, 6 MHz only yields 15 megabits. MT's N might double that. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 9/25/2010 4:25 AM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: Ah much better. Now, if a town has say 4 channels open (in a row) like 2 3 4 5, can you use 3 and 4, keeping 2 and 5 as the guard channels? or will you need to pick 3 or 4? On Sat, Sep 25, 2010
Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: 5 gig antennas
We usually target 9-11 db for 5.x omnis. (most of the 12s we tried dont work as spec'd and to narrow V beam, and most of the 15s we tried also have way to narrow V beamwidths) Recently, we have been using PCTEL (Maxrad) which makes a 5.1-5.875 wide band model at 10db. model MHO58010NF. There are several different part number dependant on whether you want the male or female N connector on the antenna. They have both. They may or may not come with mounts included. So you should verify that at purchase time. For the life of me, I cant remember where we are purchasing them from. Tessco has an assortment, which is often where I get mine. The Larson brand is also what I sometimes use in 5.x, but think they are listed as a single band, not as the full wideband, even though I use them wideband. Proxim also makes a nice 10db omni, that I sometimes had seen stocked at Winncomm.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 12:46 PM Subject: [Spam] Re: [WISPA] 5 gig antennas Boy, that's the only suggestion? Pretty scary that there are so few out there. That one only has an 8.5* vertical pattern. Not very good for most locations. That's why I really like to stay down around 8 dB. They have 12ish dB of vertical. I'll try this one and see how it does though. thanks, marlon - Original Message - From: Matt Jenkins m...@smarterbroadband.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 1:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 5 gig antennas Larsen RO5810NF 10dbi Omni with N-Female connector. On 11/15/2010 10:42 AM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Hi All, I need a 5 gig omni. 8 or 9 dB. I've got one from Winncomm but I don't like it much. The mount seems to place the raydome below the mounting bracket etc. What are folks using and where do you get them? Got a new 5 gig tower that's running about 12dB or so below calculated signal levels. thanks, marlon WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3260 - Release Date: 11/16/10 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] I must have angered the Power Supply Gods
I was haunted by the power supply gods (or I should say demons) this summer. They must have fled to Texas after I performed the last exorcism :-) No seriously, we had many power related problem this past summer, more than the agreegate of the entire rest of our time in business. Its hard to say why for sure... Whether its because a lot of the gear was in place for the past 7 years, and it was time (EOL) or whether the weather was changing for the worse. The storms were bad.(maybe global warming). Then I started thinking, maybe it was just becoming time for the power company, after reading arcticles that they were not adequately maintaining their infrastructure. But regardless of the cause, as one's company grows, it become more and more important to stay on top of power protection and adding redundancy. BAsed on the severity of electrical attacks we've seen, the single basic SOHO APC solution doesn't cut it any more. I've had some cases where multiple power protection devices in-line all got compromised. For example, a highend battery inverter, a standard cabnet UPS downstream, and router power supply in the rack all get killed at once, and that was with an additional high KA surge arrester in the panel itself, and everything common grounded. What else could I have done? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Marco Coelho To: motor...@afmug.com ; WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 5:22 PM Subject: [WISPA] I must have angered the Power Supply Gods Is is just me or are others having serious power supply issues the last two months? I've lost 6 APC Smart UPS 1500 (5 bad batts, 1 Failed unit). We change batteries every two years as a preventative measure. 1 Cisco 12000 Power Supply (never seen one of these fail) 3 Server Power supplies These have all failed at different locations, power grids, etc. No pattern. I'm tired of this nonsense. I'm going to burn a virgin power supply in the yard tonight as a sacrifice! I may even include a Cuban Cigar and some Bourbon. -- Marco C. Coelho Argon Technologies Inc. POB 875 Greenville, TX 75403-0875 903-455-5036 -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3260 - Release Date: 11/16/10 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 90-mile path (was Wireless Digest, Vol 35, Issue 21)
The issue will be height. Remember, the longer the link, the taller the freznel zone height requirement will be at the middle of the link. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 11:14 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 90-mile path (was Wireless Digest, Vol 35, Issue 21) At 11/15/2010 04:06 AM, Akinlolu Ajay-Obe wrote: I need to move 155MB internet traffic over 90miles. Fiber will take too long and cost too much. Anybody have a solution that will work. Power is an issue where repeaters are used. Solar would be the preferred option. I also need to manage and distribute bandwidth. Any ideas? The obvious answer is to build a microwave link; the trick is to find the path. An old rule of thumb is that microwave links in the 6 GHz range are good for about 30 miles per hop. This is based on needing very high reliability (telephone company backbone links) even with weather-related fade. But it is not a hard limit. You could theoretically go 90 miles on one hop. The physics are favorable if the path is direct (mountain to mountain) and doesn't have extraordinary loss, like rain or trees, or a tropo-ducting event going on. It takes a large antenna, of course. A 4-foot dish at 5.8 GHz has a lot of gain! One watt TPO is a lot of ERP. Orthogon, now part of Motorola, did some moby links that way, including a 100-mile or so high-speed link in Central America. It beats not being on line at all, even if it fails 1% of the time (not that it's that bad). But it's not at all likely to give you 99.99% reliability. Since you're in Nigeria, the climate varies quite a bit and what works in the dryer areas might not works so well in the wetter ones. But the main trick is to find a path. If you could find a mountain or tower with real line-of-sight that let you do two 50-mile paths, and you could put up big dishes, there are radios that can pump 155 Mbps. Three hops might be easier. But you should spend some time with a path calculator. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3258 - Release Date: 11/15/10 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] making money from voip
3.5x per account Question: 1. What average percent of the revenue or call time is for would be Nationwide Long Distance versus would be local calls? Obviously I recognize with some VOIP solutions long distance and local calls are treated the same, But I'm trying to determine what percentage of customers are buying VOIP because it saves them money on Long distance versus on their local call fixed monthly telco service compared to their old service.) . 2. What percent of the Subscribers are buying the VOIP for their primary phone to replace their Land Line, versus a second line? (Obviously, most subscribers would also have a cell phone provider, so not including that). Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Chuck Hogg To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 6:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] making money from voip Bought the Netsapiens solution. Currently (without taking into consideration the initial server/software cost) we are making about 3.5 x Cost per account. We've been adding 3-5 a week, and as more people learn about us offering it the faster it's selling. My cost per account is roughly $6.25, and we're selling it for $17-45 per line. Regards, Chuck On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Ryan Goldberg rgoldb...@compudyne.net wrote: Curious what models you guys are working. Hosted PBX, white label, etc. What approach for SMB v. residential v enterprise. And so on. TIA Ryan WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3251 - Release Date: 11/11/10 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] making money from voip
No, but with Land Lines you do. I'm not asking whether I break even, I ask where customers are seeing the biuggest savings from their old providers. If the average customer used to pay $100/month for long distance, and they now pay $25/month for VOIP, its easy to justify VOIP with a $75/month savings... If the average customer used to pay $38 /month fixed for land line local calls, and now pay $25/month VOIP, its not as easilly justified. So I'm really asking, what percentage of call minutes dial out to an area code that is different than the caller's area code? I'm asking because many businesses use a combination of land lines and VOIP, one carrier for long distance, one for inbound (no charge per minute for inbound), and another for outbound local. It would be helpful to have some stats on how much a company could save on each of the above service types, so marketing could be targeted accordingly. In some cases customers dont save when they pay per minute, but they gain value add. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman To: WISPA General List Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] making money from voip With true VOIP you're not going to have local calls unless you setup a PRI in your exchange. The cost for that is roughly $500 plus maintenance. That's a LOT of minutes to break even. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote: 3.5x per account Question: 1. What average percent of the revenue or call time is for would be Nationwide Long Distance versus would be local calls? Obviously I recognize with some VOIP solutions long distance and local calls are treated the same, But I'm trying to determine what percentage of customers are buying VOIP because it saves them money on Long distance versus on their local call fixed monthly telco service compared to their old service.) . 2. What percent of the Subscribers are buying the VOIP for their primary phone to replace their Land Line, versus a second line? (Obviously, most subscribers would also have a cell phone provider, so not including that). Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Chuck Hogg To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 6:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] making money from voip Bought the Netsapiens solution. Currently (without taking into consideration the initial server/software cost) we are making about 3.5 x Cost per account. We've been adding 3-5 a week, and as more people learn about us offering it the faster it's selling. My cost per account is roughly $6.25, and we're selling it for $17-45 per line. Regards, Chuck On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Ryan Goldberg rgoldb...@compudyne.net wrote: Curious what models you guys are working. Hosted PBX, white label, etc. What approach for SMB v. residential v enterprise. And so on. TIA Ryan WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3251 - Release Date: 11/11/10 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless
Re: [WISPA] making money from voip
Thanks, thats helpful Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 8:03 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] making money from voip See my comments below:- Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 11/14/2010 7:39 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: 3.5x per account Question: 1. What average percent of the revenue or call time is for would be Nationwide Long Distance versus would be local calls? Obviously I recognize with some VOIP solutions long distance and local calls are treated the same, But I'm trying to determine what percentage of customers are buying VOIP because it saves them money on Long distance versus on their local call fixed monthly telco service compared to their old service.) == Most customer's are taking on VOIP becuase of savings..Bulk of savings on VOIP come from two sources. VOIP services have less fees and other regulatory assesments associated with it. (this can be as much as $20/phone line and no these are not the normal taxes that you and I would think about). Second is the area of 'less expensive' LD.. this is a much smaller area appealing to group of folks that do a lot of LD calling. Average home phone does less than $10 /month of LD billing (traditional Telco).. but gets reamed on Fees... Above Average home phone (a migrant!) can do easily $100 to $300 in LD (international) calls. . 2. What percent of the Subscribers are buying the VOIP for their primary phone to replace their Land Line, versus a second line? (Obviously, most subscribers would also have a cell phone provider, so not including that). I guess this depends on the type of customer and the 'comfort level' / quality of service of VOIP supplier.. These days... it is pretty much all or nothing.. (about the only things we are leaving on traditional phone line (not for long though) is Fax Alarm Monitoring services). Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - *From:* Chuck Hogg mailto:ch...@shelbybb.com *To:* WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Sent:* Thursday, November 11, 2010 6:06 PM *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] making money from voip Bought the Netsapiens solution. Currently (without taking into consideration the initial server/software cost) we are making about 3.5 x Cost per account. We've been adding 3-5 a week, and as more people learn about us offering it the faster it's selling. My cost per account is roughly $6.25, and we're selling it for $17-45 per line. Regards, Chuck On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Ryan Goldberg rgoldb...@compudyne.net mailto:rgoldb...@compudyne.net wrote: Curious what models you guys are working. Hosted PBX, white label, etc. What approach for SMB v. residential v enterprise. And so on. TIA Ryan WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3251 - Release Date: 11/11/10 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless
Re: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel
WOW, 10MB hard drive, you had the good stuff. My Laptop only had Floppy drives. One for the OS, and one for data.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: RickG To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel LOL! Here we go again with the dating game :) My first laptop was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Portable It was really cool but weighed as much as sewing machine which was the term we gave it. -RickG On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Forbes Mercy forbes.me...@wabroadband.com wrote: My first LAPtop was a Kaypro 10, thank goodness I didn't have to pay baggage on it since it was as large as my travel bag... monochrome green screen with a huge 10MB hard drive and ran hot enough to fry an egg. On 11/11/2010 8:09 AM, Mark Nash wrote: Haha... You young people don't remember the term WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get)... A term for applications that made it so that documents actually LOOKED on your screen like they were going to print (anyone remember Kaypro WordStar?). I had a revolutionary idea technological in the early 90's... I called it WYGIWYM... What you get is what you MEAN. I'da been a qua-jillionaire but I didn't execute. Oh well. - Original Message - From: Scott Carullo To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 5:35 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel I'd pay a little more when they come out with the auto-install feature... Maybe one day - Auto-Everything. Just take it out of the box and plug it in. It figures out what to do where... They can call it AIRverywhere Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 From: Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 8:31 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel FYI I’m hesitant to jump into UBNT Beta firmware for large scale deployment, lesson learned the hard way……… But the latest includes channel hopping and Auto channel. I’ve had ongoing issues with random interference and every couple of weeks or so have had to change my frequencies on pretty much all my UBNT radios. But I took the plunge with this new beta and it’s been SOLID for me for a week now. I tried the channel hopping but it was too busy for me. My noise floor was all over the place. SUCKED and way too random for me BUT just doing a simple AUTO channel. Smooth as silk! My interference is now GONE. My throughput has increased and my noise floor went from an average -85 to a -95 to -100 average. Running 5GHz on all links…….. I call this one a WIN! As I said, FYI. Nothing but good on this UBNT Beta. It’s about time! J Just sharing. Me- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- -RickG -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless
Re: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel
Yeah, But it had COLOR ! (But who needs a screen when there is a TV sitting right there :-). t Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Roger Howard To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel My first laptop was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_VIC-20 But it didn't have a screen :( On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 7:33 PM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: LOL! Here we go again with the dating game :) My first laptop was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Portable It was really cool but weighed as much as sewing machine which was the term we gave it. -RickG -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3251 - Release Date: 11/11/10 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel
Gotta luv the data cassette tape. Portable storage, even fit in shirt pocket. It could have been worse, it could have been bulky 8-track :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: RickG To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 9:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel Tom, it gets better as I go back further in time. I had to use a cassette tape for storage with my TRS-80 - no floppy ;) On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote: WOW, 10MB hard drive, you had the good stuff. My Laptop only had Floppy drives. One for the OS, and one for data.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: RickG To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel LOL! Here we go again with the dating game :) My first laptop was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Portable It was really cool but weighed as much as sewing machine which was the term we gave it. -RickG On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Forbes Mercy forbes.me...@wabroadband.com wrote: My first LAPtop was a Kaypro 10, thank goodness I didn't have to pay baggage on it since it was as large as my travel bag... monochrome green screen with a huge 10MB hard drive and ran hot enough to fry an egg. On 11/11/2010 8:09 AM, Mark Nash wrote: Haha... You young people don't remember the term WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get)... A term for applications that made it so that documents actually LOOKED on your screen like they were going to print (anyone remember Kaypro WordStar?). I had a revolutionary idea technological in the early 90's... I called it WYGIWYM... What you get is what you MEAN. I'da been a qua-jillionaire but I didn't execute. Oh well. - Original Message - From: Scott Carullo To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 5:35 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel I'd pay a little more when they come out with the auto-install feature... Maybe one day - Auto-Everything. Just take it out of the box and plug it in. It figures out what to do where... They can call it AIRverywhere Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 From: Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 8:31 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel FYI I’m hesitant to jump into UBNT Beta firmware for large scale deployment, lesson learned the hard way……… But the latest includes channel hopping and Auto channel. I’ve had ongoing issues with random interference and every couple of weeks or so have had to change my frequencies on pretty much all my UBNT radios. But I took the plunge with this new beta and it’s been SOLID for me for a week now. I tried the channel hopping but it was too busy for me. My noise floor was all over the place. SUCKED and way too random for me BUT just doing a simple AUTO channel. Smooth as silk! My interference is now GONE. My throughput has increased and my noise floor went from an average -85 to a -95 to -100 average. Running 5GHz on all links…….. I call this one a WIN! As I said, FYI. Nothing but good on this UBNT Beta. It’s about time! J Just sharing. Me- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel
As well AUTO select can be like the DEVIL, when a product is sold in volume and at low cost affordable by end users. The reason is that AUTO is selfish. All it cares about is the health of its own link. It has no way to learn how it impacts the health of another's radio. The last thing a WISP wants is self imposed self interference, and not know its even occuring, because its automatic behind hte scenes. So... then comes addition of specifiying what channels are available to hop to, so that a WISP can de-select the channels that the WISP is already using at the cell site, to prevent a radio from hopping onto the channel of another AP. But problem still not solved because, the problem is not the WISP, its all the Harry Home owner people who think they are a tech, and leave AUTO on by default. SO now, Harry home owner randomly interfers with WISPs all day long. Not just on one channel, but it randomly hops to interfere with all the channels. And the WISP is helpless to engineer around the problem, because HArry Homeowner radio keeps changing channels shortly after fixed, to create a problem on a different channel. AUTO channel Hopping should be illegal. With that said, FCC law requires it for DFS support. That is hopping off radar channel. If Auto channel selection is an ehancement that will assist using DFS more reliably, well then I say good job in adding it, one more step towards progress of FCC certifiabilty.. One day it would be nice, if UBNT can be legal at 5.3 and 5.4. DFS enabled really does need abilty to define the channels that can be included or excluded from the hopping. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: m...@tc3net.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 10:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel I don't believe auto channel is intelligent, or changes based on any criteria, it just randomly picks a channel. I'm not sure it should help with your throughput. I've got a post open on their forum to try and determine exactly how the auto selection under frequency selection works. In my lab it doesn't ever change no matter what kind of signal I throw at it, it just stays fixed on some random channel it picks after selection of the option. Regards Michael Baird - Original Message - From: Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 10:25:08 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel I’d add that because of this, I was able to reduce a 40MHz link down to a 20 and a few 20’s down to 10 and still keep my throughput. I just can’t argue with that. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 9:43 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel The 5.3 Beta 2 does. I leave AirSelect off but set the channel to AUTO with Obey Regulatory rules checked. Bob- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 8:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel I wasn't aware they had an auto frequency ability. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 11/10/2010 7:32 PM, Robert West wrote: FYI I’m hesitant to jump into UBNT Beta firmware for large scale deployment, lesson learned the hard way……… But the latest includes channel hopping and Auto channel. I’ve had ongoing issues with random interference and every couple of weeks or so have had to change my frequencies on pretty much all my UBNT radios. But I took the plunge with this new beta and it’s been SOLID for me for a week now. I tried the channel hopping but it was too busy for me. My noise floor was all over the place. SUCKED and way too random for me BUT just doing a simple AUTO channel. Smooth as silk! My interference is now GONE. My throughput has increased and my noise floor went from an average -85 to a -95 to -100 average. Running 5GHz on all links…….. I call this one a WIN! As I said, FYI. Nothing but good on this UBNT Beta. It’s about time! J Just sharing. Me- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel
As well, AUTO rarely considers that Interfernce or available channels at each CPE location can vary. Selecting best channel at AP, does not guaranatee all CPE will show up after the channel change. As well, how do you plan area channel plans with Auto? Even if AP picks the best channel, it could leave your area with fewer interference free areas, becuase the full channel plan for all Cell APs may not be ideally selected. AUTO only cares about itself, not maximizing non-interferen e across your whole network. The last thing one wants after a big storm, is to have to log into 100 radios to see which ones are still on their correct channel. And if there is interference, trying to find which radio reboot causing it. I'm a firm believer of MANUAL SCAN, SET, and DOCUMENT. - Original Message - From: Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 10:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel I believe you're right. I've only ran it for a week and it smoothed me out but I saw a problem right away. The client doesn't communicate any frequency issue to the host, it just accepts. I have a hub with many backhauls on it with all but one set as AP WDS with the other end as Station WDS. The one that isn't is swapped so the one Station WDS in the middle of all the AP's will accept a frequency that is being used right next to it because the AP WDS talking to it doesn’t see the conflict. To fix, I had to swap the operation of the two. However, with the Never changes fact... and it seems to be so far, I just rebooted everything in the area and they all settled in. Much, much easier. I'm sure they will eventually auto change if they have interference, (they better!) but this addition is a major time saver for me. And the shocker It all works! At least for me. Lack of interference made my throughput jump, obviously... Verified with one sub who called the day I was changing all the firmware and asked Bob, why does it seem slower lately? Today I called and asked him how it was working.. It's popping like crazy! Sold. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of m...@tc3net.com Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 10:31 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel I don't believe auto channel is intelligent, or changes based on any criteria, it just randomly picks a channel. I'm not sure it should help with your throughput. I've got a post open on their forum to try and determine exactly how the auto selection under frequency selection works. In my lab it doesn't ever change no matter what kind of signal I throw at it, it just stays fixed on some random channel it picks after selection of the option. Regards Michael Baird - Original Message - From: Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 10:25:08 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel I’d add that because of this, I was able to reduce a 40MHz link down to a 20 and a few 20’s down to 10 and still keep my throughput. I just can’t argue with that. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 9:43 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel The 5.3 Beta 2 does. I leave AirSelect off but set the channel to AUTO with Obey Regulatory rules checked. Bob- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 8:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel I wasn't aware they had an auto frequency ability. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 11/10/2010 7:32 PM, Robert West wrote: FYI I’m hesitant to jump into UBNT Beta firmware for large scale deployment, lesson learned the hard way……… But the latest includes channel hopping and Auto channel. I’ve had ongoing issues with random interference and every couple of weeks or so have had to change my frequencies on pretty much all my UBNT radios. But I took the plunge with this new beta and it’s been SOLID for me for a week now. I tried the channel hopping but it was too busy for me. My noise floor was all over the place. SUCKED and way too random for me BUT just doing a simple AUTO channel. Smooth as silk! My interference is now GONE. My throughput has increased and my noise floor went from an average -85 to a -95 to -100 average. Running 5GHz on all links…….. I call this one a WIN! As I said, FYI. Nothing but good on this UBNT Beta. It’s about time! J Just sharing. Me-
Re: [WISPA] FW: ubnt is fricken bad ass!
Nice Post (from LIAM) I almost feel like I attended, after reading such a thorough review. It is really refreshing having a company like UBNT that is so diligently innovating. DUAL POL OMNI ! BeamForming Rocket ! PS... Also was nice to see the link to the XBOX NAT explanation. That was helpful! Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Robert West To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 11:37 PM Subject: [WISPA] FW: ubnt is fricken bad ass! Forward from my long lost son, Liam. Looks like fun when they someday become In Stock! http://www.3dbwireless.com/boyd/ From: Liam Cummings [mailto:lcummi...@datacomspecialists.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 11:56 AM To: Robert West Subject: ubnt is fricken bad ass! Check out all these new products from some one who took photos at a conference. http://www.3dbwireless.com/boyd/ -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3248 - Release Date: 11/10/10 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] VZW, USCC Contact
Sounds like Tsunami/Linx equivellent, running DSSS using most of the band to deliver a few T1s. The carriers use unlicenced for the same reason we do. They sub it out to a contractor, and then the contractor comes up with a solution that takes the least planning. Dont take it personally, the carriers usually dont use the Spectrum hogg gear to hurt you, instead they use it for selfish reasons. They figure use the protocol that require the least SNR so they minimize the risk of others can step on them. I hate that. One option is that you can deploy licensed wireless, and then go to the cellular company and try to sell them a more reliable circuit, maybe even at a discount. ONe thing that you might be able to use to your advantage is. Often the big carrier deploys unlicensed with the mentality that because its unlicensed that they dont have to tell anyone at the tower, or license that specific freq with teh tower owner. Meaning, they may not have the right to use that spectrum at the tower nailed down. So you might be able to license the use of that spectrum at the site, if you try. They likely are only protected by a first in non-interference clause, if they listed the ubnlicensed gear in their tower agreement. You might be able to re-use the spectrum if you give your self about a 100ft of seperation. I guess my point is Dont assume that The cellular carrier who owns the gear is the one that you have to negotiate with. Thats not necessarilly a given. Remember, interference can be bi-directional. And you ahve the ability to interfere with them if you also use inefficient technology. That always creates some leverage for everyone to play nice togeather. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jeromie Reeves jree...@18-30chat.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 10:34 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] VZW, USCC Contact I figured it might be a upcliff battle. That is what gets me, they DO have licensed. My guess is someone figured out if they squish the band it slow us down. Fully HALF the lower UNII4 band is hosed here, even airmax is not working. Oh how I wish Ubnt would come out with some UNII2/3 gear (namely, just add DFS2 to the existing product, or maybe if the crazy idea that WE need to avoid military radar would go away). On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Cameron Kilton c...@midcoast.com wrote: Good luck, we had a similar issue, I'm still trying to figure out why they don't go licensed. Thanks, Cameron Kilton On 11/9/2010 2:30 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: Anyone have a contact at Verizon Wireless or Us Cellular? They have some towers here that are now sitting all over the5755 making it totally unusable and some other portions of the band. Would like to try to work out some frequency sharing, anyone ever been able to? Jeromie WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3247 - Release Date: 11/09/10 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Licensed 11ghz Hops
About the same pricing, can mean a lot of things. About the same pricing could mean a $1000 difference. With Trango, the upgrade key doesn;t cost much more than that. Allthough always good to see new products entered into the market. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 9:10 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed 11ghz Hops I'm not sure of it's complete specifications, but Proxim just came out with a licensed product. GX800, I believe. I forget which booth I was at (MoonBlink, maybe) where they told me that the Proxim is about the same price point as the other licensed products out there, only there are no license keys. It comes full speed (311 each direction) out of the box. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 11/4/2010 4:20 PM, Matt wrote: We are looking at upgrading our network and adding a handful(7) 11ghz licensed hops. What gear out there can use both horizontal and vertical at once to increase throughput? We are currently considering Exalt. Short coming of 11 ghz and longish 25 mile hops is throughput. We do not need a lot of bandwidth at the start but would like to be ready to if needed. This will replace a couple DS3 circuits. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Licensed 11ghz Hops
Actually, I feel one of the flaws to the Dragonwave is that their clips to the antenna easilly can break if not careful when connecting them. Trango's are much more durable. (actually I'm not talking about the clips, but the metal-like part that the clips grab). On Andrews these parts are on the antenna side, on Trango they are on the radio side. You can however, buy a replacement plate for the antenna, if they break. But with that said, my 23Ghz Dragonwave Horizon link has been wonderful, I've never touched it since the day installed, works perfrect. My 24Gzh dragonwave on the other hand, has been a bit more temporamental. I've never gotten full RSSI out of it that path calcs show I should, so run at 50mb instead of 100mb to get quality link, and I have to reboot it every 6 months or so, when it stops passing traffic. We stopped investigating why at somepoint, because it was good enough for the application. I'm not meaning to bash DW 24Ghz, I've just used one link, so it could be an isolated case. Not enough links to have large enough sampling, to ahve a valid opinion. (note, I'm aware polarity orientation gets reverse on the opposite side with the DW 24G model) Personally, I think the relationship factor is becomming a bigger factor to what product to buy. I think its important to buy Licensed products from a supplier that you have a good relationship with, and what they stock more of. When in a bind, who's gonna overnbight you a radio, without charging you inflated list price? (I'll leave it to the buyer, to determine who they have a good relationship with) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 8:50 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed 11ghz Hops Ceragon today is NOT the same Ceragon it was 3 years ago. Unlike many here when it comes to choosing equipment I don't chase the price point. I look at who supplies the outstanding support. I look for the company that has my back when I am up against the wall with a dead link. And until someone can blow away their delivery schedule and their technical/customer support, Dragonwave is my company of choice for licensed microwave. Radio clips to the antenna, POE, simple interface, easy equipment replacement. And most importantly. the sh*t works! I can't remember EVER needing to do a firmware upgrade on a Dragonwave radio to make it work right. I can't say that for many of the other manufacturers and I have installed a lot of different equipment over the years. -B- On 11/4/2010 10:15 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: The air must be different there. I can't stand Ceragon stuff. Nothing but problems. Zero support. The firmware is terrible as is the interface. On Nov 4, 2010 9:58 PM, Brad Belton b...@belwave.com wrote: Agreed. We have had Ser# 0001 11GHz Trango GigaLINK in service since early 2008 among several others since then with great service. The few times we’ve needed Trango support they have been extremely responsive and helpful. I think we also have one of the first if not the first 18GHz GigaLINK in service too since mid 2007. We’ll be hanging three more Trango Giga’s Apex’s in the next few weeks. We have always been early adopters of Sunstream/Trango equipment. We have DragonWave, BridgeWave, Trango, DMC, Ceragon and PCOM licensed gear deployed and active in 6GHz, 11GHz, 18GHz, 23GHz, 38GHz and 70-80GHz on our network. By far the Trango, BridgeWave and Ceragon links are our favorites. Best, Brad From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blake Covarrubias Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed 11ghz Hops We use Trango GigaLinks almost exclusively in our network; 6ghz, 11ghz, 18ghz, and 23ghz. They work very well support thus far has been great. -- Blake Covarrubias On Nov 4, 2010, at 14:43, Nick Olsen n...@brevardwireless.com wrote: I've worked with a few of the Trango Apex 11ghz links. Running 256QAM they will do ~258Mb/s full duplex, or something like that. .8 to 1ms across it, With 10Mb/s or 200Mb/s of traffic on it. So far, They've been the best links I've had the pleasure of working with. In terms of performance, And management. Nick Olsen Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106 http://www.flhsi.com/files/emaillogo.jpg _ From: David E. Smith d...@mvn.net Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:32 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed
Re: [WISPA] Licensed 11ghz Link Issues, Need Advice
My opinion is that the dish damage probably would not cause much RSSI loss. (unless severe, but if it was severe I'm sure you never would ahve installed it). If part of the dish was bent, you'd need to determine what percentage of teh surface area was effected not reflecting to the correct point. Most likely antenna is not the problem. Wireless links need to be aligned both Horizontally and Vertically. If you did not fine tune alignment vertically on both sides, you need to. Sometimes it takes doing it twice on one side, such as A, then B, then A, to get a good alignment. Also, I did not catch whether you were using Coax SPlit archetecture model or Ethernet Integrated model. If Coax model, a bad connector crimp can easilly cause a 10db RSSI degregation. Never trust a connector just by Visual inspection, if you are not getting correct RSSI. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Bill Gaylord bi...@torchlake.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 9:12 AM Subject: [WISPA] Licensed 11ghz Link Issues, Need Advice I have a Dragonwave link that was performing about 35-40db lower than the link budget says it should. I sent tower climbers up to repeak the link and found they did have it on aligned on a horizontal side lobe. After re-peaking it got better, but is now about 15-20db lower than the link budget. It is running about a -52 and the budget calls for a -34. They did peak the vertical axis, but is it possible that even though both antennas were mounted plum, that they are aligned on a vertical side lobe. Like I said, they did say they peaked the vertical, but I don't know if they did a proper sweep on the vertical because it is not a quick to do as on the horizontal. They are both plum, but the antennas have about 300ft of vertical separation at 5 miles. Would difference in height put them in into a vertical side lobe? I am asking because the 30in antenna's had come slightly damaged, but it appeared to just be where the raydom attached to the dish. Dragonwave did not think this would cause an issue. I just need to know if I need to pay for 2 more tower climbs to re-peak the vertical, or take down the dishes to return them. Thank you in advance for any advice that can be given here. By the way, it is our first licensed link, so it is my first experience with anything above 5ghz. Bill Gaylord, President COLI Inc. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Licensed 11ghz Hops
I was refering to the Trango having a Combiner option now, that allowed two Apexes to share one antenna via 1 horiz and 1 V pol. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Scott Carullo To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed 11ghz Hops Trango does what now too? Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 -- From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 1:40 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed 11ghz Hops Trango also does that now to. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Alan Bryant a...@gtekcommunications.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:28 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed 11ghz Hops We have been using one Dragonwave 11 ghz link with absolutely no problems. It is about 7 miles. We are putting up two Nera 11 ghz links right now. One is about 17 miles, the other about 10 miles. So far the support from Nera is not the greatest. On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote: We are looking at upgrading our network and adding a handful(7) 11ghz licensed hops. What gear out there can use both horizontal and vertical at once to increase throughput? We are currently considering Exalt. Short coming of 11 ghz and longish 25 mile hops is throughput. We do not need a lot of bandwidth at the start but would like to be ready to if needed. This will replace a couple DS3 circuits. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Alan Bryant Gtek Computers Wireless L.L.C. Office: 361-777-1400 | Fax: 361-777-1405 a...@gtekcommunications.com | www.gtek.biz CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication (including any attachments) may contain privileged or confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this communication and/or shred the materials and any attachments and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this communication, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. Thank you. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Licensed 11ghz Hops
Any discussion on best way to combine the two links from the DATA FLOW perspective or TCIP/IP perspective? The average Mikrotik Loadbalancer may not handle that 800mbps link all that well. Are people using Switch level trunk aggregation, or layer3 aggregation methods? OR just running two seperate logical link, and putting different traffic on different routers/links? There can be issues with combining at LAyer2, because often two wireless links dont operate at exactly teh same speed due to slightly different link qualities (packetloss) or SNRs. I'm assuming most would want to use a session bases method that would dynamically assign a specific session to a single link, which would require a high layer load balancing option. We are familiar with most of the load balancing methods, jsut wondering what others are choosing for combining two licensed 300-400mb links, and which hardware (switch or router) they are using to accomplish it. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 3:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed 11ghz Hops You coordinate two paths. We have a Trango GigaLINK 6GHz link using two radio pairs and a combiner plate attaching to one antenna on each end. One radio set is V the other is H. Gives us twice the capacity (165MB x 2) plus failover in the event one ODU or IDU fails plus Frequency diversity for higher overall availability. Best, Brad From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 2:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed 11ghz Hops Not sure where dual polarities come in to play with licensed gear. I know that your PCN strictly states V or H. The SAF CFIP Lumina uses 50Mhz one way and 50Mhz the other way to get full duplex. Each channel with 256qam does 325mbps. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote: How long has Exalt been doing licensed gear? Is it pretty good gear? Does SAF allow you to use a dual polarity dish in 11ghz and bond both polarities for additional bandwidth? Can both polarities be done on the same channel? WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: Licensed 11ghz Hops
Brad is correct. 40Mhz max, due to FCC regs in 11Ghz. Note, some LIcensed 11Ghz gear is capable to be configured to 56Mhz channels sizes because some other countries's regulatory bodies allow 56Mhz channels. For example, I'm pretty sure England does. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton To: sc...@brevardwireless.com ; 'WISPA General List' Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 4:45 PM Subject: [Spam] Re: [WISPA] Licensed 11ghz Hops No, I do not think so. FCC limits 11GHz channel size to 40MHz. However, 165 + 165 = 330, so that gets you beyond 300MB in 6GHz with a combiner and 265 + 265 = 530 in 11GHz with a combiner plate. Brad From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Carullo Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 3:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed 11ghz Hops Can you use 40Mhz channels with the trangos on 11Ghz for 300Mb throughput? I thought we were limited to 40mhz on our apexes for a ~268max throughput... Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 -- From: Brad Belton b...@belwave.com Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 3:10 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed 11ghz Hops You coordinate two paths. We have a Trango GigaLINK 6GHz link using two radio pairs and a combiner plate attaching to one antenna on each end. One radio set is V the other is H. Gives us twice the capacity (165MB x 2) plus failover in the event one ODU or IDU fails plus Frequency diversity for higher overall availability. Best, Brad From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 2:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed 11ghz Hops Not sure where dual polarities come in to play with licensed gear. I know that your PCN strictly states V or H. The SAF CFIP Lumina uses 50Mhz one way and 50Mhz the other way to get full duplex. Each channel with 256qam does 325mbps. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote: How long has Exalt been doing licensed gear? Is it pretty good gear? Does SAF allow you to use a dual polarity dish in 11ghz and bond both polarities for additional bandwidth? Can both polarities be done on the same channel? WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Systems Management - Process
This automagically happens when your script to automagically update Nagios removes accounts which are marked as inactive. Be careful with that idea. Automating that almost killed us. The reason is that sometimes you may want to disable monitoring on an account that is live, because it may be temporarilly down or temporarilly getting false alarms. There were times when we'd have 10-15 alarms disabled manually. The problem then is that when you automate a global corss refference between billing and monitoring, it re-enables all teh accounts you wanted disabled temporarilly. Then you spend 30 mionutes re-disabling the account, if you can remember which they are, as you get reminders all niught long when you get it wrong. I'm for automation, but no automation should check all the monitors and auto change. The automation should be on an account by account basis only. You dont want the automation to mess with accounts that are not the one you are specifically working on. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Cameron Crum cc...@wispmon.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 8:22 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Systems Management - Process This is why we wrote wispmon. Handles virtually all this in a single platform. Cameron On Friday, November 5, 2010, Scott Lambert lamb...@lambertfam.org wrote: On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 02:34:01PM -0700, Mark Nash wrote: This is lengthy, but worth discussion, I think... Unless there is a good process in place to ensure that these systems get updated when components on our networks are added/removed/replaced/changed. That place is the billing system For instance... A new customer is added to our network... Information about that new customer goes into: - billing (several things here...email address verified, pro-rate amount added for first month, valid billing address, name spelled correctly, correct price, contract signed stored, etc) - nagios (to monitor) With the right information in billing, a bit of scripting will automagically keep your Nagios configuration up to date. - IP documentation (so we don't duplicate IPs) Keep this in the billing system. - equipment documentation (so we know what we're dealing with if we have to go out there again) Keep this in the billing system where your techs can update as needed. - name the association on the AP so it's easily identifiable You can probably script this from the billing system if it tracks the MAC address of the customer's equipment. Depends on your APs and such. Then if that customer cancels... - remove from billing Mark the account inactive in billing. Keep the data. Database storage is cheap these days. That's probably what you meant... - remove from Nagios (so we stop monitoring) This automagically happens when your script to automagically update Nagios removes accounts which are marked as inactive. - remove from IP documentation (so we can re-use that IP) Let the billing system mark the IP as inactive when the account is marked inactive. - remove equipment documentation Keep the documentation on the account notes. They may come back. Database storage is cheap these days. Or if that customer has to change towers on our network... Update the billing system. - change monitored IP address Automagically happens on the next Nagios configuration generation run. - change IP documentation (so we can re-use the old IP) Do this through the billing system. - change equipment documentation (if necessary) This is part of updating the billing system, which the on-site tech should do before leaving the customer's site. Updating the billing system while on-site ensures the Tech actually tested the connection by using it. - name the association on the new AP so it's easily identifiable Hopefully you can script this from the billing system. Now let's consider replacing a backhaul goes down... - change the routing to go to use a backup backhaul (we're using manual re-routing, not autmatic) Dynamic routing. Manual, ick. - change the hierarchy in our monitoring system (we use Nagios Parents so that devices that are behind a Down device is not Down itself, just Unreachable - saves the inbox from getting blasted if a backhaul goes down If there are multiple paths, you can use multiple parents in Nagios. Nagios should do the right thing. We don't use the multiple parents option because it screws up the Map. But if the primary path goes down, the hosts which are still reachable stay up in Nagios. - change the monitored IP address for the router at that site so we're monitoring an IP address that is going over the backup backhaul You can create hosts in Nagios for each interface on a router if you want. Then you know when your backup path goes down before the primary dies. Then you get it back up and you have
Re: [WISPA] NS2 with 24v
Well, considering it ships with 24V UBNT PS, yes it supports 24V Should use regulated PS, to make sure stays under 25V. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jason Hensley ja...@jaggartech.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 11:28 AM Subject: [WISPA] NS2 with 24v Will an NS2 run on 24v or will it fry it? WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Licensed 11ghz Hops
Trango also does that now to. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Alan Bryant a...@gtekcommunications.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:28 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed 11ghz Hops We have been using one Dragonwave 11 ghz link with absolutely no problems. It is about 7 miles. We are putting up two Nera 11 ghz links right now. One is about 17 miles, the other about 10 miles. So far the support from Nera is not the greatest. On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote: We are looking at upgrading our network and adding a handful(7) 11ghz licensed hops. What gear out there can use both horizontal and vertical at once to increase throughput? We are currently considering Exalt. Short coming of 11 ghz and longish 25 mile hops is throughput. We do not need a lot of bandwidth at the start but would like to be ready to if needed. This will replace a couple DS3 circuits. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Alan Bryant Gtek Computers Wireless L.L.C. Office: 361-777-1400 | Fax: 361-777-1405 a...@gtekcommunications.com | www.gtek.biz CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication (including any attachments) may contain privileged or confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this communication and/or shred the materials and any attachments and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this communication, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. Thank you. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Full BGP on RouterOS
That is way cool, to have that much real redundancy in a router. How big is Big? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson t...@ida.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:37 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Full BGP on RouterOS Tom, I agree that Linux works very well as a router, but it still doesn't compare to a dedicated hardware platform (like Cisco) that was built from the ground up to do nothing but routing. We purchased a used Cisco 12008 router about 1.5 years ago off ebay. They are very, very cheap... the only downside is they are BIG and require 240VAC. But it's way cool to pull the CPU card while the router is moving 500Mbps of traffic and have it not even miss a single ping (due to the redundant CPU card). Same goes for the route fabric card. ;) We use Mikrotik for our inside core router and this big Cisco for our border router to our BGP upstreams. I have slept very well for the last 1.5 years knowing everything in the box is fully redundant (CPU, route, power, etc.). :) Travis Microserv On 11/2/2010 9:04 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Note: Quagga has been very reliable for quite some time now. Imagestream and Vyatta both use Quagga. Both are great choices for BGP routers. I personally use Mandrake (Mandriva) Linux with a slew of custom modifications that we have made, loaded on SuperMicro, and then use latest Quagga. That has worked well for us, the last 5 years. (although, I dont recommend that to someone, until they are vastly familiar with their distro of Linux. Last thing you want to do is use your BGP router for a Guinee Pig Science project, rebooting it all the time to test script changes.) But once you are comfortable with your Distro, it works well. There are a million arguements for and against Cisco versus Linux, to be used for the ISPs' average NOC/POP router/switch. I dont dispute any of the arguements. But one area where I believe Linux stands tall, is as a CORE BGP router. A core BGP router can be one of the more simplistic configured routers because it only really needs to perform one function, BGP routing to its connected peers. For BGP there are two critical needs Fast processors and Lots of RAM. In todays world there is no excuse to not have both of those. The problem with Cisco is that it lacks both, unless you pay big bucks. Linux on the other hand has an abundance of both, when combined with PC-Like hardware. I laugh at my competitors, when they say, oh no, BGP reset, had to reload BGP tables, now there is latency for like 3 minutes or compromised routing for that period or got a route problem, the small prefixes aren't in my tables. . On Linux, if you want to restart BGP, well thats like 1 second to reload tables. And no need to drop any routes, unless you want to. You could have Full routes with like 30 peers from a single router, if you wanted to. You can load up Linux with like 32 NICs (qty8 4port GIG NICs) in a 2U case, if you want to, and dont even need a Switch. (Although new will cost you about $430 per 4port PCI-E Gig NIC). Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Kristian Hoffmannkh...@fire2wire.com To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Full BGP on RouterOS On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 18:52 -0500, Scott Lambert wrote: I still need to try a Vyatta system. I loathe the idea of managing a *nix distro on a router (which is why we use RouterOS now). Apparently I've had too much Tik-aid, because I had completely forgotten about Vyatta and similar options. I have a SuperMicro 5015A-H (Atom 330 dual-core) coming in tomorrow. I'm going to try RouterOS and Vyatta and see how BGP responds on each with a single feed. If anyone else has an x86-based distro they'd like to see performance on, let me know. And thanks for all the responses. The information has been very helpful. Unfortunately, the conclusion I came to is I have no idea what I'm going to do. Cisco = $$$ and MikroTik = coin flip. Hopefully Vyatta lands somewhere in the middle. Thanks, -Kristian WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] Full BGP on RouterOS
Actually, answered own question... Saw picts on Google. Pretty sweet switch/router (12000 series), as long as its not sitting in an Equinix cage at $50/ 1U / month. Probably would costs $500-$700/mon to colo. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson t...@ida.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:37 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Full BGP on RouterOS Tom, I agree that Linux works very well as a router, but it still doesn't compare to a dedicated hardware platform (like Cisco) that was built from the ground up to do nothing but routing. We purchased a used Cisco 12008 router about 1.5 years ago off ebay. They are very, very cheap... the only downside is they are BIG and require 240VAC. But it's way cool to pull the CPU card while the router is moving 500Mbps of traffic and have it not even miss a single ping (due to the redundant CPU card). Same goes for the route fabric card. ;) We use Mikrotik for our inside core router and this big Cisco for our border router to our BGP upstreams. I have slept very well for the last 1.5 years knowing everything in the box is fully redundant (CPU, route, power, etc.). :) Travis Microserv On 11/2/2010 9:04 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Note: Quagga has been very reliable for quite some time now. Imagestream and Vyatta both use Quagga. Both are great choices for BGP routers. I personally use Mandrake (Mandriva) Linux with a slew of custom modifications that we have made, loaded on SuperMicro, and then use latest Quagga. That has worked well for us, the last 5 years. (although, I dont recommend that to someone, until they are vastly familiar with their distro of Linux. Last thing you want to do is use your BGP router for a Guinee Pig Science project, rebooting it all the time to test script changes.) But once you are comfortable with your Distro, it works well. There are a million arguements for and against Cisco versus Linux, to be used for the ISPs' average NOC/POP router/switch. I dont dispute any of the arguements. But one area where I believe Linux stands tall, is as a CORE BGP router. A core BGP router can be one of the more simplistic configured routers because it only really needs to perform one function, BGP routing to its connected peers. For BGP there are two critical needs Fast processors and Lots of RAM. In todays world there is no excuse to not have both of those. The problem with Cisco is that it lacks both, unless you pay big bucks. Linux on the other hand has an abundance of both, when combined with PC-Like hardware. I laugh at my competitors, when they say, oh no, BGP reset, had to reload BGP tables, now there is latency for like 3 minutes or compromised routing for that period or got a route problem, the small prefixes aren't in my tables. . On Linux, if you want to restart BGP, well thats like 1 second to reload tables. And no need to drop any routes, unless you want to. You could have Full routes with like 30 peers from a single router, if you wanted to. You can load up Linux with like 32 NICs (qty8 4port GIG NICs) in a 2U case, if you want to, and dont even need a Switch. (Although new will cost you about $430 per 4port PCI-E Gig NIC). Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Kristian Hoffmannkh...@fire2wire.com To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Full BGP on RouterOS On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 18:52 -0500, Scott Lambert wrote: I still need to try a Vyatta system. I loathe the idea of managing a *nix distro on a router (which is why we use RouterOS now). Apparently I've had too much Tik-aid, because I had completely forgotten about Vyatta and similar options. I have a SuperMicro 5015A-H (Atom 330 dual-core) coming in tomorrow. I'm going to try RouterOS and Vyatta and see how BGP responds on each with a single feed. If anyone else has an x86-based distro they'd like to see performance on, let me know. And thanks for all the responses. The information has been very helpful. Unfortunately, the conclusion I came to is I have no idea what I'm going to do. Cisco = $$$ and MikroTik = coin flip. Hopefully Vyatta lands somewhere in the middle. Thanks, -Kristian WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] Full BGP on RouterOS
When the number of peers is high, it flops miserably. I always wonder if that is an Education issue instead of a Quagga issue. Being connected to more peers enables more chances for bad routes sent or compatibility issues. One advantage of Quagga is its support base. Smarter people than I contribute to the code base. Because Quagga is used in many appliance's OS, and those manufacturer's programmers are likely to contribute to the Quagga source. Atleast Vyatta did. I'm not in an position technically to be able to comment on how Quagga compares to BIRD or OpenBGPd. But its good to know there are choices out there. (Note: I think Imagestream also offered GateD at one point as a choice, but I believe GateD no longer stacks up to Quagga) One negative thing about Quagga is that its authentication feature is not natively supported. So might need to run open, and use firewalling and filters to compensate, for lack of security. might want to take it to the next level by using hardware-based forwarding, with open-source software and gateware: http://www.netfpga.org/ Interesting to learn of and read. Although, I question at what point something like Hardware forwarding is really needed. With QuadCoreCPE or Dual Quad, PCI-E, NAPI, and I/0 scaling accross cores, just right there the forwarding speed is fantastic, into the multi-Gigbit (10gb). And as well, with newer XEON (5 series) AT/IO can add to it. (Although some work involved to enable such). Although it might not get full wire speed, it gets close. The advantage of sticking with Intel, is once again the support base. Writing drivers is often above the tech know how of the average ISP tech, and with Intel, a lot of the work is done for you by the commuity. But most importantly, that once Intel driver is selected, that you know there is a huge amount of hardware that will be available long term to use that code, without going back to the code writing drawing board. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 3:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Full BGP on RouterOS On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote: Note: Quagga has been very reliable for quite some time now. Imagestream and Vyatta both use Quagga. Both are great choices for BGP routers. Although it's a different scenario, the IXP folks beg to differ about Quagga reliability. When the number of peers is high, it flops miserably. Some of them moved to OpenBGPd, some of them to BIRD (http://bird.network.cz). None of them moved to XORP, Mikrotik's choice (and Vyatta's prior to switching to Quagga). If one have time, he or she should test all of the above... with limited time, I would favor testing BIRD first. I personally use Mandrake (Mandriva) Linux with a slew of custom modifications that we have made, loaded on SuperMicro, and then use latest Quagga. That has worked well for us, the last 5 years. (although, I dont recommend that to someone, until they are vastly familiar with their distro of Linux. Last thing you want to do is use your BGP router for a Guinee Pig Science project, rebooting it all the time to test script changes.) But once you are comfortable with your Distro, it works well. And once you are comfortable with open-source border routing, you might want to take it to the next level by using hardware-based forwarding, with open-source software and gateware: http://www.netfpga.org/ Rubens WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Full BGP on RouterOS
You also have the problem where you cant have 1 ethernet cable plugged into two routers at the same time, unless you add switches in the front, which then adds complexity to setup and another point of failure. There is no question that there is value to a hardware redundant single server, in a mission ciritical environment. The question is, can one afford it, and is it cost justified. MANY CAN cost justify it. I cant. Its also possible for redundant hardware to fail, so there is also value to having a fail over second router. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: can...@believewireless.net p...@believewireless.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 9:10 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Full BGP on RouterOS I think one of the main differences is BGP failover. With one box, your BGP session never drops. With two distinct servers, the session will drop and the second router will start it up. Then, when the primary comes back online, the session will drop again and restart. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Full BGP on RouterOS
Hot Swap is hard to fully accomplish with PCs. Everyone needs a plan for how maintenance will occur with minimal downtime. For example, its prettty easy to buy a nice Rack case with redundant PS, but how do you replace an overheating CPU? A standard Rack PC does not have HotSwap CPUs, and it is inevitable that sooner or later the Heatsink fan will fail or heat sink grease will harden. And how does one troubleshoot that, on a live router? That is the negative of a Linux self made Rack PC. But again, thats the reason for a hot spare router to put in place, and a reason for scheduled maintenance to occur every couple years after hours, when a 60 second outage is acceptable. As ISPs start to become gloabal ISPs opperating in multiple time zones, it becomes tougher, to find good times to do maintenance, but I dont think most WISPs are at that stage where it matters that much. When it does matter that much, I'd argue the WISP should have both hardware redundancy and router redundancy. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 11:26 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Full BGP on RouterOS Powercode's MAXX does that...or so they say. I believe ImageStream says they can do this too. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote: Having two routers talking to each other is not the same as a single router with redundant parts. I can pull the CPU card from my Cisco and the box never misses a single packet because the 2nd CPU card is in the same box. Same with the route processor cards. Same with the power supplies. If you have two boxes doing VRRP, and BGP, if the power supply goes out of a box, how long before the 2nd box could fully take over? 30 seconds? 60 seconds? :( Travis Microserv On 11/3/2010 6:26 PM, Scott Reed wrote: OK, elaborate on how 2 distinct identical boxes is not hardware redundancy. I think by the definition of redundancy, it is 100%. Webster: characterized by similarity or repetition a group of particularly redundant brick buildings On 11/3/2010 6:45 PM, Blake Covarrubias wrote: Jeff, VXRs and down. Not GSR's and up. I wasn't entirely clear in my last message. Like Travis I was also commenting about the Cisco GSR / 12000 platform. I'm well aware of the performance of a Linux box compared to a VXR. We run a few VXR routers in our network in addition to GSR's, BSD routers, and MikroTik. What you're describing really isn't true hardware redundancy. I'm also well aware of BGP and its use in a multi-homed environment. We have two separate GSRs acting as our edge routers. One in California, one in Arizona. Both routers have multiple eBGP peers, and run iBGP between them. They're connected by a series of licensed microwave radios with about 155mbps of bandwidth between the two. We'll be supplementing that link with a dedicated GigE fiber link in the coming months. I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding bridging between two connections. There's no requirement to run a bridged network in order to operate iBGP. I have no doubt Quagga works well in some BGP applications. We don't use it because we have requirements for performance uptime which a Linux/BSD box cannot currently meet. We provide voice (TDM) and data services for companies in various industries such as mining, manufacturing, aerospace, defense, energy, cellular, and even other ISPs. We literally cannot afford to wrestle with the issues others on this list experience. If its not reliable we replace it. We don't have a problem paying for reliability. -- Blake Covarrubias On Nov 3, 2010, at 1:16 PM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists wrote: Hi Blake, I’m not sure what sort of speeds you think Linux limits out at, but I believe you might be surprised at how much throughput you can get. We generally blow the doors off of the VXRs and down. There are two different ways of getting hardware redundancy. One is with a massively expensive single box, like the Cisco. The other is to set up redundant hardware…which is particularly good in a BGP application. You can have a relatively inexpensive router on each circuit, set up iBGP and VRRP between the boxes, and BGP between the peers. That way, if you lose anything, all the in and outbound traffic fails to the other unit(s). This also allows for geographic separation of the routers. If you can bridge between the routers, you can have them in completely different locations…thus keeping your network running if something really nasty happens. I can’t speak for the other companies, but ImageStream has been handling BGP for around 10 years. We use Quagga currently and we’ve found it to be very stable, as our customers on-list have
Re: [WISPA] Full BGP on RouterOS
Note: Quagga has been very reliable for quite some time now. Imagestream and Vyatta both use Quagga. Both are great choices for BGP routers. I personally use Mandrake (Mandriva) Linux with a slew of custom modifications that we have made, loaded on SuperMicro, and then use latest Quagga. That has worked well for us, the last 5 years. (although, I dont recommend that to someone, until they are vastly familiar with their distro of Linux. Last thing you want to do is use your BGP router for a Guinee Pig Science project, rebooting it all the time to test script changes.) But once you are comfortable with your Distro, it works well. There are a million arguements for and against Cisco versus Linux, to be used for the ISPs' average NOC/POP router/switch. I dont dispute any of the arguements. But one area where I believe Linux stands tall, is as a CORE BGP router. A core BGP router can be one of the more simplistic configured routers because it only really needs to perform one function, BGP routing to its connected peers. For BGP there are two critical needs Fast processors and Lots of RAM. In todays world there is no excuse to not have both of those. The problem with Cisco is that it lacks both, unless you pay big bucks. Linux on the other hand has an abundance of both, when combined with PC-Like hardware. I laugh at my competitors, when they say, oh no, BGP reset, had to reload BGP tables, now there is latency for like 3 minutes or compromised routing for that period or got a route problem, the small prefixes aren't in my tables. . On Linux, if you want to restart BGP, well thats like 1 second to reload tables. And no need to drop any routes, unless you want to. You could have Full routes with like 30 peers from a single router, if you wanted to. You can load up Linux with like 32 NICs (qty8 4port GIG NICs) in a 2U case, if you want to, and dont even need a Switch. (Although new will cost you about $430 per 4port PCI-E Gig NIC). Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Kristian Hoffmann kh...@fire2wire.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Full BGP on RouterOS On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 18:52 -0500, Scott Lambert wrote: I still need to try a Vyatta system. I loathe the idea of managing a *nix distro on a router (which is why we use RouterOS now). Apparently I've had too much Tik-aid, because I had completely forgotten about Vyatta and similar options. I have a SuperMicro 5015A-H (Atom 330 dual-core) coming in tomorrow. I'm going to try RouterOS and Vyatta and see how BGP responds on each with a single feed. If anyone else has an x86-based distro they'd like to see performance on, let me know. And thanks for all the responses. The information has been very helpful. Unfortunately, the conclusion I came to is I have no idea what I'm going to do. Cisco = $$$ and MikroTik = coin flip. Hopefully Vyatta lands somewhere in the middle. Thanks, -Kristian WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Can't get my 100MB
. With Wireless networks, we all know that that is not what happens. If there is packet loss, it is likely that that percentage of packetloss will be there regardless of the transmission rate. Also, 802.11A adaptive modulation changes can inject some delays that can sometime effect transmit speed with TCP. This is another reasons sometimes Wifi links perform best with the 802.11A radio configured to minimize modulation changes, or hard set to the best modulation, the highest that does not ever auto adapt out of. In most case, when an upstream sells you a 100mbps link, it is usually a 100mbps link. There is a bigger chance your testing environment is flawed, or somewhere in the testing path, or in MULTIPLE aread across the testing path, there are very small quality (packet loss and delay) issues that in aggregate slow down TCPIP. In many cases it does not have to be fixed, depending on what services you typically sell. For example, if you onl;y sell up to 10mbps speeds, it doesn't really matter if you can test up to 100mbps in one stream, all that matters is taht your custoemrs can test up to 10mbps, and that you can have 10 customers testing at once successfully, which will be able to occur if the cpacaity is there, regardless of the quality. Lastly, if you are having trouble finding quality issues, you may need to packet sniff at layer2 and see what you see. If you see retransmissions alot, or to many acks, it can be a sign of problems on that link. When testing at speeds above 100mbps, dont trust 1 tool. Use multiple tools until you are certain that you ahve accurate data. LAstly again, You must test bypassing your network. Sorta like a laptop direct to teh circuit. But dont assume that that test will replicate how the circuit will perform when connecting to your router. The reason is Duplex mismatches, window size autoadjusts, flow control settings and stuff like that, might have to be set differently on the upstream provider side dependant on which type of device that you plug into the circuit. So be aware of all that, when testing. Good luck with it. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Forbes Mercy forbes.me...@wabroadband.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 4:37 PM Subject: [WISPA] Can't get my 100MB I just took delivery on a 100MB Fiber connection from Charter, we're perplexed at the variable speed tests we are getting. Charter's varies from 25 to 50MB down, speedtest.net goes to about 20-25MB down and 30 up, speakeasy doesn't go above 20MB. Charter says the cap is off on our 100MB so it should be showing that. The anatomy of our network is fiber to our head-end, goes to a Charter switch then to our Cisco 2811, then to a gig netgear switch. We're doing our speed tests on a standard browser (Firefox) in a Windows 2003 box that has a 10/100 ethernet (about 8 feet) to the gig switch. I'm debating if the 2811 is hefty enough to handle the 100MB, any ideas? Thanks, Forbes WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Verizon LTE
Re: [WISPA] Verizon LTEWell, I disagree. Cell company network are engineered for mobile and high volume over subscribed networks. But Cell Companies ARE Marketing their services to customers with routers and Xboxes. And Consumers ARE being fooled to perceive mobile technology as being a replacement for their Land Line or Fixed Wireless Service. Its the customers that are telling me, why should I pay you $1000/mon for 10mb, when Clear is selling 20mbps for $70/mon. And it is the computer support tech geeks that are telling their customers, hey why not use this AirCard Router, and solve all your broadband problems at home and small business. There is a whole network out there of not experts, who think they are experts showing consumers how to do it. There is no pre-existing Customer Mindset that understands Fixed Wireless. That is the challenge for WISP marketers. We have to change the public perception and mindset. That is not easy, but whether we succeed at that, determines if we make the sale or not. So... Why are Cell Carriers marketing to home router users? They are doing it for the same two reason that we are. 1) They dont want to get bundled in with last generation, such as Low grade WIFI or 3G. They now use buzzwords like WiMax or LTE or 4G, and are supposed to be offering something more grand than the old stuff. 2) Cable Companies and FTTH providers are brainwashing the world that they should have 20-50mbps, even if its peak. And consumers think that is what they are supposed to have and buy. End users dont understand what Wireless is capable versus what wires are capable of. Satelite advertises it, why cant cellular? The consumers say... If its the same speed, why cant I use my cellular service at home like my land line? It worked for my phone service! 50 kbps versus 50mbps, whats the difference? They both deliver 50 :-) The facts are... WISPs are screwed. Consumers will forever be misled. And Competitors will always bend the truth and exploit it to their marketing advantage with consumers. Our only choice, is to educate educate educate. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Justin Wilson To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 1:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon LTE Part of the think working for WISPs is the mindset. Cell companies, and people view service from a Cell Company as being mobile. They don't market to a customer who is at home with a router and an xbox. Who cares if it is fast if you can't share it or aren't told how to share it? This will change over time, but for now it is a selling point for the WISP. -- Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net http://www.mtin.net/blog - xISP News http://www.twitter.com/j2sw - Follow me on Twitter Wisp Consulting - Tower Climbing - Network Support -- From: Steve Barnes st...@pcswin.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 08:54:27 -0400 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon LTE The concern I have is in my coverage area Verizon already has 6 towers. I doubt they would be to worried about working with me. What I see is that I have 2 years to upgrade my equipment to be able to beat Verizon at all levels. TVWS could be a real game changer to us being so wooded. 700 Mhz LTE will already have the advantage. Steve Barnes General Manager PCS-WIN http://www.pcswin.com/ RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service http://www.rcwifi.com/ From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Steve Barnes Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 8:23 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Verizon LTE Just got this from Verizon as a link on a advertisement: Verizon's 4G network will be available in 38 markets and major airports, covering approximately 100+ million people by the end of the year. We plan to double that in 2012 and cover our entire existing 3G footprint with 4G LTE by the end of 2013. Verizon Wireless is aggressively building the nation's first 4G LTE network across the same footprint that is currently covered by its nationwide 3G network, which covers more than 90% of the U.S. population. In order to provide access to this 4G LTE network to more of the U.S. population living in rural areas, Verizon Wireless plans to work with rural companies to collaboratively build and operate a 4G network in those areas using the tower and backhaul assets of the rural company and Verizon Wireless' core LTE equipment and 700MHz spectrum. Verizon Wireless provides a unique opportunity for selected participants to leverage the company's technical and spectrum resources. We are seeking companies that can assist in bringing the benefits of 4G LTE service to rural areas
Re: [WISPA] Verizon LTE
Yes this says. BTOP/BIP recipients You know that open access policy. Guess what, we are going to use your assets to compete against you for last mile customers, and we wont have any restrictions. We (Verizon) have the spectrum and you dont, so we are protected. You know what... we want you as our tower company/bandwdith company, because all the other pre-existing landlords are a pain to deal with, and they charge us way to much. We'll let you be our vendor, IF you give us a better price. You should be able to since your network was built with subsidized money. You wont make millions on last mile Internet, but we'll let you make a few dollars on transport and towers. And you know... this deal will really help us (Verizon). The reason is that we use Fiber tower ALOT. And Fiber tower has very little competition. We'd love Fiber tower to have competitions, so the price of licensed wireless transport will go down, when we (verizon) isn't the one providing it. I'm not saying that it is good or bad, just saying it is what it is. Sure its smart for Verizon to look at all their options to partner that can save them money and reduce their investment. What I will say is that all the big telcos look toward moving their models from reoccuring lease costs to ownerous costs. The yare smart enough to know the value of owning their resources when it is possible. So I believe Verizon will have very tough contracts, to guarantee that they get a good deal on the partnerships. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Steve Barnes To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 8:22 AM Subject: [WISPA] Verizon LTE Just got this from Verizon as a link on a advertisement: Verizon's 4G network will be available in 38 markets and major airports, covering approximately 100+ million people by the end of the year. We plan to double that in 2012 and cover our entire existing 3G footprint with 4G LTE by the end of 2013. Verizon Wireless is aggressively building the nation’s first 4G LTE network across the same footprint that is currently covered by its nationwide 3G network, which covers more than 90% of the U.S. population. In order to provide access to this 4G LTE network to more of the U.S. population living in rural areas, Verizon Wireless plans to work with rural companies to collaboratively build and operate a 4G network in those areas using the tower and backhaul assets of the rural company and Verizon Wireless’ core LTE equipment and 700MHz spectrum. Verizon Wireless provides a unique opportunity for selected participants to leverage the company’s technical and spectrum resources. We are seeking companies that can assist in bringing the benefits of 4G LTE service to rural areas that currently lack Verizon Wireless coverage. Verizon Wireless may work with rural companies that have towers and backhaul capabilities, even if those companies are not currently wireless operators. Together, we will plan and coordinate a local LTE deployment schedule that makes sense for both Verizon Wireless and the rural company that we are collaborating with. http://aboutus.vzw.com/rural/Overview.html Steve Barnes General Manager PCS-WIN RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] anyone know what this is about?
What a racket. All I can say is Big Brother. Add another Bill to the list to fight and burn. I do find it ironic though, how classic Sci-Fi literature finds a way to evolve into current day reality politics. Sometimes I think these law makers either did not read enough as kids, or then again maybe they read to much. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gary Garrett ggarr...@nidaho.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 2:19 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] anyone know what this is about? I'm thinking the Gov'mnt will not know for sure if there is a backdoor or not without trying it, and with just a few more clicks they are monitoring some guy at random and so we WILL be checked at random for our Protection. There goes the whole warrant thing right there. I am sure it works for them, Not Us. On 10/19/2010 12:13 PM, Greg Ihnen wrote: I heard about this on the Tech News Today podcast. Folks are not happy about it. It sounds like the end of encryption without back doors, without the govt having the keys. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] PtP Dish Alignment
Also note, because regular compass works on magnatism, it will not always function accurately on top of tall buildings, because of all the other forces up there that screw with it. So usually, we print a map, draw a line, and look for landmarks, and calculate the degree to a specific landmark, therefore we can align / verify our compass to that landmark. GPS compass will work more accurately. We do almost all our 5.X dish alignments with a single tech, one side at a time, and we find it quicker (man hours) to do it that way, even when a second trip is needed to the first site.. If aligning millimeterwave 24Ghz and above, well its like near impossible to do quickly without two people. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Greg Ihnen To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:26 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] PtP Dish Alignment It looks like for around $150 you could get binoculars with a built in magnetic compass that you see through the binoculars. Could you use the binoculars to find an object on the horizon on the right azimuth and then point the dish there? Greg On Oct 19, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Mark Nash wrote: Question: What tools do you use to blindly put up the first end of a ptp without having a visual on the other side? Details: When deploying ptp dishes... One team doing both ends at different times. The first dish must be aligned without a connecting radio at the other end. We know how to get uptilt/downtilt/azimuth from Radio Mobile. Uptilt/downtilt is easy to do with a simple gauge. Azimuth is a different story. If you can see the site that you're aiming for, no big deal, but what if you can't? We have a number of backhaul upgrades to do in the next few months, and we have alot of fog here in the mornings this time of year. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] PtP Dish Alignment
Actually not true in many cases. If the distance is really long beyond site, such as 20-30miles, I'd agree. But if say LOS within 10 miles or so on a clear day, its pretty easy. After our tech eye balls the alignment, I'll usually have the tech do a fine align just in case we can improve it. BUt 9 out of 10 times, it was not necessary and maybe we'll gain a half DB. The secret to aligning dishes is to look through the feed hole before the feed is screwed in. (for example PAC wireless parabolic dish). You then home in on the far side area aiming for, positionioned in cetner of hole, and make sure the Ring around the hole appears equal size all around to verify it is aligned. Because the hole has metal around it that has DEPTH, maybe 1/4-1/2 inch, you can see the depth of this inside surface all around the hole. As matter of fact, if we dont get our link budget acheieve and we need to trouble shoot why, we check cables first, because the odds of having a bad cable is higher than the tech getting the first alignment attempt wrong. Panels are harder to align, because looking from the side. Sure it can be harder to align a big dish with radome that does not have a removable feed. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] PtP Dish Alignment That's not realistically possible. You would have to be extraordinarily lucky to align that first dish without having any measurements. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Mark Nash markl...@uwol.net wrote: (sent a message a few minutes ago but through strange indicators I think it may not have sent out...sorry if it's a double-post) I'm trying to have 1 crew and not do the 2nd trip to the first tower. - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 8:28 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] PtP Dish Alignment You would need more people then. You can't align the dish without both radios being powered. You could do two 3 man crews, one at each site. Both install at the same time and they should finish around the same time frame. Align before coming down at all. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Greg Ihnen os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: It looks like for around $150 you could get binoculars with a built in magnetic compass that you see through the binoculars. Could you use the binoculars to find an object on the horizon on the right azimuth and then point the dish there? Greg On Oct 19, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Mark Nash wrote: Question: What tools do you use to blindly put up the first end of a ptp without having a visual on the other side? Details: When deploying ptp dishes... One team doing both ends at different times. The first dish must be aligned without a connecting radio at the other end. We know how to get uptilt/downtilt/azimuth from Radio Mobile. Uptilt/downtilt is easy to do with a simple gauge. Azimuth is a different story. If you can see the site that you're aiming for, no big deal, but what if you can't? We have a number of backhaul upgrades to do in the next few months, and we have alot of fog here in the mornings this time of year. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List
Re: [WISPA] PtP Dish Alignment
YEAH, I'm spoiled, since most of my towers are actually 20 story buildings, where I can stand, and easilly move feeds, without dropping screws 300ft below :-) Or atleast one side of a link on a easy accessible roof top. I agree its a different deal with true towers on each side. ITs never worth having to make a second climb unnecessarilly, and also not a good idea having climbers sitting up on a tower waiting for a long time for hte other side to finish. So, yeah, better time management and planning duing the install is needed, prior to the climbers climbing. If we have to climb the first side a second time we try to combine it with other work. For example, if tower 1 is a two day job Day1- install dish on tower1, install dish on tower 2. Day2 - install remaining sectors on tower1, re-align dish on tower1 Its rare that we install two tower with lots of stuff. We usually extend from one tower to a second tower that we are building out. So most of work is only at one of the towers. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] PtP Dish Alignment I've never put a dish up half together. I've always seen it done putting everything together then hoisting it up. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote: Actually not true in many cases. If the distance is really long beyond site, such as 20-30miles, I'd agree. But if say LOS within 10 miles or so on a clear day, its pretty easy. After our tech eye balls the alignment, I'll usually have the tech do a fine align just in case we can improve it. BUt 9 out of 10 times, it was not necessary and maybe we'll gain a half DB. The secret to aligning dishes is to look through the feed hole before the feed is screwed in. (for example PAC wireless parabolic dish). You then home in on the far side area aiming for, positionioned in cetner of hole, and make sure the Ring around the hole appears equal size all around to verify it is aligned. Because the hole has metal around it that has DEPTH, maybe 1/4-1/2 inch, you can see the depth of this inside surface all around the hole. As matter of fact, if we dont get our link budget acheieve and we need to trouble shoot why, we check cables first, because the odds of having a bad cable is higher than the tech getting the first alignment attempt wrong. Panels are harder to align, because looking from the side. Sure it can be harder to align a big dish with radome that does not have a removable feed. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] PtP Dish Alignment That's not realistically possible. You would have to be extraordinarily lucky to align that first dish without having any measurements. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Mark Nash markl...@uwol.net wrote: (sent a message a few minutes ago but through strange indicators I think it may not have sent out...sorry if it's a double-post) I'm trying to have 1 crew and not do the 2nd trip to the first tower. - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 8:28 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] PtP Dish Alignment You would need more people then. You can't align the dish without both radios being powered. You could do two 3 man crews, one at each site. Both install at the same time and they should finish around the same time frame. Align before coming down at all. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Greg Ihnen os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: It looks like for around $150 you could get binoculars with a built in magnetic compass that you see through the binoculars. Could you use the binoculars to find an object on the horizon on the right azimuth and then point the dish there? Greg On Oct 19, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Mark Nash wrote: Question: What tools do you use to blindly put up the first end of a ptp without having a visual on the other side? Details: When deploying ptp dishes... One team doing both ends at different times. The first
Re: [WISPA] PtP Dish Alignment
Jim that is an excellent point. Its how our climbers did it that we pay. They draw the direction to point on the ground with spray paint or something. Then when on the tower, looking down, its pretty easy to align the feed with the line on the ground. For up down, I've seen them use levels on the dish, and pre-calculate the downtilt. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jim Patient To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 6:00 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] PtP Dish Alignment We hillbilly them up all the time and most of the time don't need to go back to tower 1. Every once in a while we might have to go back and tweak the alignment a little. I use Delorme Topo USA and a GPS receiver on my laptop. Mark both locations and draw a line between the towers. Zoom in and start walking directly away from the tower in the direction of the link and keep the little arrow thingy on the line. I go out a few hundred feet, make sure I'm on the line and drop a direction target to shoot at. Jim Patient Cell: 314-565-6863 Desk: 636-692-4200 YIM: jeffcosoho www.wlan1.com www.linktechs.net www.wifimidwest.com On 10/19/2010 10:16 AM, Mark Nash wrote: Question: What tools do you use to blindly put up the first end of a ptp without having a visual on the other side? Details: When deploying ptp dishes... One team doing both ends at different times. The first dish must be aligned without a connecting radio at the other end. We know how to get uptilt/downtilt/azimuth from Radio Mobile. Uptilt/downtilt is easy to do with a simple gauge. Azimuth is a different story. If you can see the site that you're aiming for, no big deal, but what if you can't? We have a number of backhaul upgrades to do in the next few months, and we have alot of fog here in the mornings this time of year. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Time to update the National WISP Map?
For those that have that, I'd agree that would be easiest, and have the added benefit that the updated WISP map would match State Maps. But... We cant assume for majority of members that they participated with their States and disclosed their data, nor that the State's shape files are accessible to the WISP. I'm aware that most states asked for WISP data, but I'm not confident that all States agreed to provide data or mapping product back. I'd be interested in learning what percentage of WISPA members gave their data to States. Whether WISPs gave shape files to States, or whether States made the shape files with the provided data. As well interesting to learn how many States used similar methods as other states to map the data. I know many WISPs did not participate with their States, because their states did not give them adequate time to provide data, or terms for participation were not safe by default, and some WISPs thought that evn though States would likely work with the WISP's concerns, that the WISP might not have had the time to deal with the agrevation on the State's time line. I would like to see a process be developed or defined, in which members of WISPA could be included at their own time table, within reason. For example, if after the first MAP update, if a new prospect signed up to be a WISPA member that they had a way to get their data added. (Whether for a fee, or at a defined update interval, if it made it more affordable to do bulk updates). Part of this process would be a quick overview document on what the member would need to do to participate. EVen if it was as simple as... We support the following formats The following tools can produce such formats... If additional consultant help needed, Contact Brian :-) As well, our NAtional MAP must continue to be a process that gives the member the choice of anonymous versus Full Data. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Webster To: 'Martha Huizenga' ; 'WISPA General List' Cc: memb...@wispa.org ; motor...@afmug.com Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 12:37 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Time to update the National WISP Map? If you can ask your broadband mapping authority to send you the shape file package they created and/or used to show your network coverage I will use that data directly. Brian From: Martha Huizenga [mailto:mar...@dcaccess.net] Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 11:51 AM To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; WISPA General List Cc: motor...@afmug.com; memb...@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Time to update the National WISP Map? sounds great to me. What do we need to send you? Martha Huizenga DC Access, LLC 202-546-5898 Friendly, Local, Affordable, Internet! Connecting the Capitol Hill Community Join us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter On 10/11/2010 10:37 AM, Brian Webster wrote: And I wonder what everyone would think about the idea of identifying which WISP is serving the area this time? With all the requests Matt Larson sends out from the WISP Directory, they come directly from the national map. We don't identify who serves the area currently and thus the consumer questions who they should contact. Again, thoughts and ideas or complaints? The last version I ran the WISP's were promised anonymity. This would be a big change and I don't want to violate any trust I had with those who provided information in the past. Brian From: Charles N Wyble [mailto:char...@knownelement.com] Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 10:13 AM To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Time to update the National WISP Map? Brian, I think this is a wonderful idea. :) On 10/11/2010 07:04 AM, Brian Webster wrote: I have been thinking that I should do another update to the WISP National Map. I would really love to improve the quality of the coverage area this time. The thought is to have each WISP who participated in their respective state broadband mapping initiative request a copy of the shape file for their network. If everyone sent that information to me I could use that to create a better nationwide map. WISPA Wants You! Join today!http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] OT: Value of Atlas 5010's
Well... When the other side is 500ft up a tower and working and the other side failed, I bet 1 used side of a 5010 would hold its original value pretty well. If you are patient to wait for the situation. But the flip side is... Who wants to put up a link, where if one side fails in the future, the replacement wont be in stock, and wont be easy to find? Expecially when the NEW TL-45 model can be had on specials for excellent pricing. I personally feel its unwise to buy a used product at a rate greater than 50% of price of equivellent model replacement. I guess it depends why you are asking. Whether its for Company evaluation, looking to buy one, or looking to sell one. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jerry Richardson To: motor...@afmug.com ; WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 2:24 PM Subject: [WISPA] OT: Value of Atlas 5010's Anyone know what working Atlas 5010's should be worth on the street? -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Shopping for bandwidth
I disagree. It depends in what stage in the process they ask the question. If a few customers pay $1, most likely most customers pay $2. The vendors is going to target $2 custoemrs, and how does the vendors know whether you are a $1 prospect, if you dont make him aware? I hate it when I lose a vendor because they were two high, then after a huge amount of time and frustration I lock into another contract with someone else, and then learn the original vendor could have met my price if I had just asked for it. Nobody wants to give the store away by default. You got to ask for it, and prove to them why you should get it. One good way to prove it, is to tell him what price you can get from others. Maybe not tell him your exact current price, but tell them who the competitors are, and target pricing you are shooting for. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Cameron Kilton c...@midcoast.com To: ro...@g5i.net; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Shopping for bandwidth I just laugh at them and say, wouldn't you like to know Thanks, Cameron Kilton On 10/4/2010 3:31 PM, Roger Howard wrote: What do you do when you ask for a quote for bandwidth, and the person asks what you are paying right now. Do you tell them, and if you do, won't they just undercut it by a little just to get your business? Seems like a strange way of doing business to ask what you're paying for something before giving you a quote. Thanks, Roger WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Australia Sidney
Any WISPs on list from Australia? If so, contact me off-list. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc 301-515-7774 IntAirNet - Fixed Wireless Broadband WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 11GHz fade margin
The standard Lumina at 11GHz does up to +12 dBm at 256QAM and +19 dBm at QPSK. Thanks for posting the complete accurate data. Note: Trango standard does 22dbm QPSK and 19dbm 256QAM, thus longer range. They have a high power model that does +25 at QPSK and +17 at 256 QAM at 11GHz. Thats much better, and good to know... Didn't realize that, since its not publisized on their web spec sheet, I last got. Quick question on connectors I saw that they offer it in dual CAT5 or Dual Fiber, and the spec sheet showed a picture of the fiber ports. What type fiber connector is that? It didn't look standard, from the photo. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Patrick Cole z...@amused.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 6:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 11GHz fade margin Thought I would chime in since I'm using the SAF lumina in my network: The standard Lumina at 11GHz does up to +12 dBm at 256QAM and +19 dBm at QPSK.SAF designed this radio specifically for lower power applications (solar etc). and has a typical power consumption around 25W per unit. They have a high power model that does +25 at QPSK and +17 at 256 QAM at 11GHz. Pat Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 06:18:28PM -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: Why Exalt over Dragonwave or SAF? I cant answer for Exalt, as not familiar with the product but can answer regarding SAF SAF is a great radio. Its affordable, and a nice package available from distribution. But I believe the SAF radio has significantly lower TX power. I dont remember exactly but think it was around 13-15db. My point is that its considerably less TX power than Trango standard or Dragonwave HP versions. So the SAF is not as good a choice for longer range links that are pushing the distance specs. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Jenkins To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 3:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 11GHz fade margin Why Exalt over Dragonwave or SAF? On 09/29/2010 12:49 PM, Marco Coelho wrote: We're looking at the exalt ExploreAir for these links. Anyone using them in 11 GHz? I'd like some first hand feedback. Marco On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:02 PM, David E. Smith d...@mvn.net wrote: On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 11:51, Marco Coelho coelh...@gmail.com wrote: I'm looking at deploying some 11GHz gear. I would like to do one path in two 27 Mile Hops. Using 6' dishes I show a fade margin of 19db. Is this adequate for 11GHz at that rage? At 5GHz - 6GHz, I would be fine with it. I have a pair of Trango Apex radios in that band, for a 22-mile link. Four foot antennas. One side is about 130' AGL, the other is (I think) 250'. There have been some thermal ducting issues over the last few months - at least I assume it's thermal ducting. Occasionally, for a minute or two the link will lose 15-20 points of SNR, and that often pushes the error rate high enough that the radios temporarily lose modem lock. Almost always happens just before or after dawn (give or take an hour). It usually fixes itself within a minute or two, fortunately. Probably qualifies for four-nines reliability, which is good enough for my purposes. David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe
Re: [WISPA] 11GHz fade margin
min/yr error is based on total link availability which includes both rain and multi-path. Obviously, each manufacturers tool will yield slightly different results based on what the specific radio's receive sensitivity and power level is for that brand, and what modulations that it supports. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Collins, Jim jcoll...@twncorp.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:49 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 11GHz fade margin Tom, What make/model of 11 GHz gear are you using? One particular manufacturer shows 11 GHz performing with 5 nines for spans in excess of 20 miles using standard high performance 2.6 ft antennas. I was just curious what your manufacturer forecasts vs real life. Thanks, James R. Collins 255 Pine Avenue North Oldsmar, FL 34677 813-891-4774 Direct 813-416-4039 Cell 813-891-4712 Fax -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 5:26 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 11GHz fade margin Marco, In Maryland, to get 270mbps reliably, I try not to do any link in 11Ghz beyond 10 miles or so with 3ft dishes, to get 99.999%. Rain fade calculated at about 18db fade in that situation. But still, in heaviest rain, I dropped link a few times. Obviously with lowest modulation, larger dishes, and lower 9 expectations, in dryer climates, you can go much much farther. Using DragonWave's tool, with Greenville, TX rain data, 6ft dishes both sides, Highpower (19.5db), 40Mhz, model HC277, you show -42dbm with about a 17.5db fade margin, listing 99.978% uptime. (Trango's APEX or GIGAPLUS probably does as far if not farther, I just didn't have the Trango tool handy while writing this) My point here is, your link has 17db rain margin for a 27mile link in an area with a higher rain rate (I think around 66mm/hr), accomplishing a lower fade margin than I have for my 10 mile links here in Maryland where the rain rate might be around 48mm/hr. So... same fade margin, but your link three times longer. Your link will likely drop much more frequently. But will it? There is a misconception that a link three times longer could have three times the fade, which is not true, because the rain causing the fade rarely covers a wide area. For example, the rain storm might just be raining over one mile of the path, regardless of the length of the path. What is a critical factor is the direction of your link, and the likeliness of whether the Rain storm would just cross your link path once (moving perpandicular), or whether rain storm likely would travel along the path of your link in parallel. If the storm followed the path of your link, moving 1 mile at a time along the path from one end to the other, the duration in which the rain storm would effect your path would be much longer. So not only is it useful to predict the heaviest rain and duration in an area, but also the directions storms likely move. That was a mistake I made... I have a backhaul three cell sites in a row 10 miles apart, and almost always when a storm comes through, it hits each and every one of the three tower one at a time after each other, as the storm migrates. Thus, if a storm causes an outage it causes it three times, once for each link it hits. If my towers were aligned perpandicutlar, I'd have one third the amount of outages or downtime. So yes, the 27mile link can be accomplished with 11Ghz. But yes, you will have some downtime, and you need to deside if that can be tolerated for the link's pupose. At Full modulation the tool says 728min of outages. You'll have to rely on adaptive modulation, and the lower modulations speeds during rain and fade. At 100mbps it has 37db fade margine, the downtime drops to only 40min/yr, (99.997%) which is way more acceptable. You can do some calcs and see that if you changed the design to be three 19 mile hops, and the uptime would go down to only 11 min/yr w/ adaptive modulation down to100mb. But then, you'd have 1/3 more expense. I guess this boils down to whether your need of capacity versus uptime is more important. a 100mbps 5.8Ghz or 6Ghz link will have much better uptime at 27miles. If you need higher capacity, then 11Ghz will give it to you, most of the time 99.97% of it, but you'll have some occassional down time. What I'm learning is to both 1) trust the path calc tools, but 2) also to realize there are other factors that can degrade the real world results, and should look at the tool as being the best case. Thinks that can contribute to worse are antennas that move, antennas that get misaligned, noise that develops, cables that fail, adaptive modulation or rebooting slow to respond, that could result in additional
Re: [WISPA] 11GHz fade margin
Why Exalt over Dragonwave or SAF? I cant answer for Exalt, as not familiar with the product but can answer regarding SAF SAF is a great radio. Its affordable, and a nice package available from distribution. But I believe the SAF radio has significantly lower TX power. I dont remember exactly but think it was around 13-15db. My point is that its considerably less TX power than Trango standard or Dragonwave HP versions. So the SAF is not as good a choice for longer range links that are pushing the distance specs. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Jenkins To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 3:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 11GHz fade margin Why Exalt over Dragonwave or SAF? On 09/29/2010 12:49 PM, Marco Coelho wrote: We're looking at the exalt ExploreAir for these links. Anyone using them in 11 GHz? I'd like some first hand feedback. Marco On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:02 PM, David E. Smith d...@mvn.net wrote: On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 11:51, Marco Coelho coelh...@gmail.com wrote: I'm looking at deploying some 11GHz gear. I would like to do one path in two 27 Mile Hops. Using 6' dishes I show a fade margin of 19db. Is this adequate for 11GHz at that rage? At 5GHz - 6GHz, I would be fine with it. I have a pair of Trango Apex radios in that band, for a 22-mile link. Four foot antennas. One side is about 130' AGL, the other is (I think) 250'. There have been some thermal ducting issues over the last few months - at least I assume it's thermal ducting. Occasionally, for a minute or two the link will lose 15-20 points of SNR, and that often pushes the error rate high enough that the radios temporarily lose modem lock. Almost always happens just before or after dawn (give or take an hour). It usually fixes itself within a minute or two, fortunately. Probably qualifies for four-nines reliability, which is good enough for my purposes. David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fwd: EFF needs your help to stop the Senate's DNScensorship bill
http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm Senate Judiciary Committee Members Patrick J. Leahy Chairman, D-Vermont Biography Herb Kohl D-Wisconsin Biography Jeff Sessions Ranking Member, R-Alabama Biography Dianne Feinstein D-California Biography Orrin G. Hatch R-Utah Biography Russ Feingold D-Wisconsin Biography Chuck Grassley R-Iowa Biography Arlen Specter D-Pennsylvania Biography Jon Kyl R-Arizona Biography Chuck Schumer D-New York Biography Lindsey Graham R-South Carolina Biography Dick Durbin D-Illinois Biography John Cornyn R-Texas Biography Benjamin L. Cardin D-Maryland Biography Tom Coburn R-Oklahoma Biography Sheldon Whitehouse D-Rhode Island Biography Amy Klobuchar D-Minnesota Biography Ted Kaufman D-Delaware Biography Al Franken D-Minnesota Biography Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Bret Clark To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 10:42 AM Subject: [WISPA] Fwd: EFF needs your help to stop the Senate's DNScensorship bill This came on the NANOG list for those who don't subscribe to that list...thought I'd pass it along here. Looks like you need to respond to Peter by today 4PM EST. Bret Original Message Subject: EFF needs your help to stop the Senate's DNS censorship bill Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:40:25 -0700 From: Peter Eckersley p...@eff.org To: na...@nanog.org Dear network operators, I apologise for a posting that contains some politics; I hope you'll agree that it also has fairly substantial short-to-medium term operational implications. As you may or may not have heard, there is a censor-DNS-to-enforce-copyright bill that is going to be passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee this Wednesday. It will require service providers to censor the DNS entries of blacklisted domains where piracy is deemed too central to the site's purpose. Senators are claiming that they haven't heard any opposition to this bill, and it is being sponsored by 14 of the 19 committee members. We believe it needs to be stopped, and we need your help. What EFF needs right now is sign-ons to an open letter, from the engineers who helped build the Internet in the first place. The text of our letter is below. If you agree with it and would like to sign, please send me an email at p...@eff.org, with your name and a one-line summary of what part of the Internet you have helped to design, implement, debug or run. This is URGENT. I need your sign-ons by 4:00pm, US Eastern time (1pm Pacific), tomorrow. Unfortunately, the civil liberties community has been ambushed by this bill. You can find out more details on the bill here: https://eff.org/coica --- Open letter from Internet engineers to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: We, the undersigned, have played various parts in building a network called the Internet. We wrote and debugged the software; we defined the standards and protocols that talk over that network. Many of us invented parts of it. We're just a little proud of the social and economic benefits that our project, the Internet, has brought with it. We are writing to oppose the Committee's proposed new Internet censorship and copyright bill. If enacted, this legislation will risk fragmenting the Internet's global domain name system (DNS), create an environment of tremendous fear and uncertainty for technological innovation, and seriously harm the credibility of the United States in its role as a steward of key Internet infrastructure. In exchange for this, the bill will introduce censorship that will simultaneously be circumvented by deliberate infringers while hampering innocent parties' ability to communicate. All censorship schemes impact speech beyond the category they were intended to restrict, but this bill will be particularly egregious in that regard because it causes entire domains to vanish from the Web, not just infringing pages or files. Worse, an incredible range of useful, law-abiding sites can be blacklisted under this bill. These problems will be enough to ensure that alternative name-lookup infrastructures will come into widespread use, outside the control of US service providers but easily used by American citizens. Errors and divergences will appear between these new services and the current global DNS, and contradictory addresses will confuse browsers and frustrate the people using them. These problems will be widespread and will affect
Re: [WISPA] Fwd: EFF needs your help to stop the Senate's DNScensorship bill
If anyone interested, these are my comments that I sent to my Maryland senator. Dear Senator, My understanding is that the Senate Judiciary Committee is currently considering the newly proposed Internet Censorship and Copyright bill. I am a Maryland ISP, and writing this letter to strongly appose this bill. Implementing this bill, would force Internet Access Providers to compromise their DNS (Domain Name System) to blacklist and censor Internet Domain Names. Such an act could destroy the USA's dominant ownership and control position of the Internet, both in the US and World Wide, for numerous reasons. 1) If DNS censorship were to be implemented, the US would look like Hypocrite. How can we promote an open and free Internet, and then simultaneously mandate practices that do the opposite, and censor content and content providers. 2) ISPs are accountable and liable to their customers, both ethically and contractually. It is inappropriate for an ISP to block content or compromise their customer's Internet experience, based on the claims made by third party blacklisting companies, because the ISP would have no reasonable way to verify the accuracy of the provided blacklist data. Simply asking ISPs to trust the data is inappropriate. 3) ISPs should not be forced to determine what is and what isn't legal content. That is the job of the courts and/or trained law enforcement. Access Providers have systems in place to pass data, and in most cases are agnostic to the actual content that passes. In some cases, privacy policies prevent ISPs from even looking at it. It therefore is inappropriate for ISPs to be forced to blacklist domains in DNS, when they may not have a reasonable way to verify whether content is legal or not. 4) What's most important is that we do not lose sight that we play in a GLOBAL market place, not only a US market place. The US currently has the majority market share of in Internet hosting collocation, and hosting Broadband traffic. This market share leverages the US to maintain significant control of the Internet, both politically and competitively. If the US were to impose anti-neutral conditions on broadband providers and ISPs, such as to force them to censor domains in the DNS system, Content providers would likely move their servers oversees. If the US loses its hosting market share, it could result in the US and US carriers losing control of the Internet, both politically and competitively. 5) The US is a World Wide symbol of Freedom and Openness. The US must continue to live up to the standard that we preach to the world, if we want to be respected by the world as a leader. To lead the Internet, we must stay Neutral, if we expect the World to trust us as the leader of the Internet. I just don't see the world taking it well, for the US to self-elect themselves to be the one passing judgment on what is and isn't legal content on the world wide web, considering that many blacklists today prematurely and overzealously block non-US content. 6) Lastly, forcing Censorship of the DNS system in the US will not help solve the problem anyways, since it's a global market place. If DNS becomes compromised and censored, the world will just turn to alternative Name Resolution services or providers. There is no technical limitation that prevents Internet users or Internet Content providers from turning to use new protocols for name resolution, or preventing consumers and ISP from turning to unregulated ISPs operating in other countries to perform their DNS resolution. For the above reasons, we strongly urge that you vote against the bill. Thank you for your consideration. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Bret Clark To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 10:42 AM Subject: [WISPA] Fwd: EFF needs your help to stop the Senate's DNScensorship bill This came on the NANOG list for those who don't subscribe to that list...thought I'd pass it along here. Looks like you need to respond to Peter by today 4PM EST. Bret Original Message Subject: EFF needs your help to stop the Senate's DNS censorship bill Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:40:25 -0700 From: Peter Eckersley p...@eff.org To: na...@nanog.org Dear network operators, I apologise for a posting that contains some politics; I hope you'll agree that it also has fairly substantial short-to-medium term operational implications. As you may or may not have heard, there is a censor-DNS-to-enforce-copyright bill that is going to be passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee this Wednesday. It will require service providers to censor the DNS entries of blacklisted domains where piracy is deemed too central to the site's purpose. Senators are claiming that they haven't
Re: [WISPA] 11GHz fade margin
Marco, In Maryland, to get 270mbps reliably, I try not to do any link in 11Ghz beyond 10 miles or so with 3ft dishes, to get 99.999%. Rain fade calculated at about 18db fade in that situation. But still, in heaviest rain, I dropped link a few times. Obviously with lowest modulation, larger dishes, and lower 9 expectations, in dryer climates, you can go much much farther. Using DragonWave's tool, with Greenville, TX rain data, 6ft dishes both sides, Highpower (19.5db), 40Mhz, model HC277, you show -42dbm with about a 17.5db fade margin, listing 99.978% uptime. (Trango's APEX or GIGAPLUS probably does as far if not farther, I just didn't have the Trango tool handy while writing this) My point here is, your link has 17db rain margin for a 27mile link in an area with a higher rain rate (I think around 66mm/hr), accomplishing a lower fade margin than I have for my 10 mile links here in Maryland where the rain rate might be around 48mm/hr. So... same fade margin, but your link three times longer. Your link will likely drop much more frequently. But will it? There is a misconception that a link three times longer could have three times the fade, which is not true, because the rain causing the fade rarely covers a wide area. For example, the rain storm might just be raining over one mile of the path, regardless of the length of the path. What is a critical factor is the direction of your link, and the likeliness of whether the Rain storm would just cross your link path once (moving perpandicular), or whether rain storm likely would travel along the path of your link in parallel. If the storm followed the path of your link, moving 1 mile at a time along the path from one end to the other, the duration in which the rain storm would effect your path would be much longer. So not only is it useful to predict the heaviest rain and duration in an area, but also the directions storms likely move. That was a mistake I made... I have a backhaul three cell sites in a row 10 miles apart, and almost always when a storm comes through, it hits each and every one of the three tower one at a time after each other, as the storm migrates. Thus, if a storm causes an outage it causes it three times, once for each link it hits. If my towers were aligned perpandicutlar, I'd have one third the amount of outages or downtime. So yes, the 27mile link can be accomplished with 11Ghz. But yes, you will have some downtime, and you need to deside if that can be tolerated for the link's pupose. At Full modulation the tool says 728min of outages. You'll have to rely on adaptive modulation, and the lower modulations speeds during rain and fade. At 100mbps it has 37db fade margine, the downtime drops to only 40min/yr, (99.997%) which is way more acceptable. You can do some calcs and see that if you changed the design to be three 19 mile hops, and the uptime would go down to only 11 min/yr w/ adaptive modulation down to100mb. But then, you'd have 1/3 more expense. I guess this boils down to whether your need of capacity versus uptime is more important. a 100mbps 5.8Ghz or 6Ghz link will have much better uptime at 27miles. If you need higher capacity, then 11Ghz will give it to you, most of the time 99.97% of it, but you'll have some occassional down time. What I'm learning is to both 1) trust the path calc tools, but 2) also to realize there are other factors that can degrade the real world results, and should look at the tool as being the best case. Thinks that can contribute to worse are antennas that move, antennas that get misaligned, noise that develops, cables that fail, adaptive modulation or rebooting slow to respond, that could result in additional or premature downtime. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Marco Coelho coelh...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 12:51 PM Subject: [WISPA] 11GHz fade margin I'm looking at deploying some 11GHz gear. I would like to do one path in two 27 Mile Hops. Using 6' dishes I show a fade margin of 19db. Is this adequate for 11GHz at that rage? At 5GHz - 6GHz, I would be fine with it. Is anyone else pushing 11GHz this far? -- Marco C. Coelho Argon Technologies Inc. POB 875 Greenville, TX 75403-0875 903-455-5036 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] Fwd: EFF needs your help to stop the Senate's DNScensorship bill
Patrick, Nice! To other state's WISPs... Reminder: a senator represents his constituents. We need each senator on the Judicial committee to be contacted, and it will help if the contact is from an ISP that is a constituent of that specific senator. Both Email and Fax, since on such short notice, before the vote. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoemaker shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 4:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fwd: EFF needs your help to stop the Senate's DNScensorship bill And here are mine, in case anyone wants to copy and modify: Mr. Cardin: I am writing as a Maryland resident, an Internet user, and the owner of a Maryland-based Internet Service Provider that serves Maryland businesses. I would like to voice my opposition to S. 3804, the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act. I realize that combating software piracy, copyright infringement, and counterfeit material is an important goal given the increasing prevalence of these nefarious activities in today's online world. However, the methodology proposed in this act to fight these disreputable activities is not aligned with the best interests of Internet users and network operators worldwide. Of particular concern is the proposed ability of the US government to make alterations to the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS) in order to limit access to domains that are deemed to be supporting copyright infringement, software piracy, or other illegal activity. Please consider the following when voting on S. 3804 tomorrow: -Allowing government control of DNS adds a layer of censorship to the Internet as a whole. The commercial and public success of the Internet is based in no small part to its open nature. Adding government censorship to a key component of the Internet goes against the principles that led to its success. -Implementing government-based DNS censorship will add significant administrative burden to network operators. This will result in increased cost to consumers for their residential Internet connections. Additionally, this burden will be particularly onerous for smaller ISPs that can't leverage the economies of scale that nationwide operators enjoy. -Censoring the Internet's DNS will surely result in the development of alternative name-resolution services that circumvent the goals of COICA. This will not only negate the purpose of the act, but will add an unnecessary layer of complexity to the Internet as a whole. The net result will be decreased network reliability and increased cost. I would encourage the Senate Judiciary Committee to pursue alternate means to limit illegal Internet activity. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Patrick Shoemaker Vector Data Systems, LLC http://www.vectordatasystems.com On 9/28/2010 4:19 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: If anyone interested, these are my comments that I sent to my Maryland senator. Dear Senator, My understanding is that the Senate Judiciary Committee is currently considering the newly proposed Internet Censorship and Copyright bill. I am a Maryland ISP, and writing this letter to strongly appose this bill. Implementing this bill, would force Internet Access Providers to compromise their DNS (Domain Name System) to blacklist and censor Internet Domain Names. Such an act could destroy the USA’s dominant ownership and control position of the Internet, both in the US and World Wide, for numerous reasons. 1) If DNS censorship were to be implemented, the US would look like Hypocrite. How can we promote an open and free Internet, and then simultaneously mandate practices that do the opposite, and censor content and content providers. 2) ISPs are accountable and liable to their customers, both ethically and contractually. It is inappropriate for an ISP to block content or compromise their customer’s Internet experience, based on the claims made by third party blacklisting companies, because the ISP would have no reasonable way to verify the accuracy of the provided blacklist data. Simply asking ISPs to trust the data is inappropriate. 3) ISPs should not be forced to determine what is and what isn’t legal content. That is the job of the courts and/or trained law enforcement. Access Providers have systems in place to “pass data”, and in most cases are agnostic to the actual content that passes. In some cases, privacy policies prevent ISPs from even looking at it. It therefore is inappropriate for ISPs to be forced to blacklist domains in DNS, when they may not have a reasonable way to verify whether content is legal or not. 4) What’s most important is that we do not lose sight that we play in a GLOBAL market place, not only a US market place. The US currently has the majority market share of in Internet hosting collocation, and hosting Broadband traffic. This market
Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
Yeah... that will help. In my neck of the woods, its possible the only available channels might be in the lower channels anyway. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Webster To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height But what if you are able to use spectrum around 200 or 300 MHz? That certainly goes through trees. Brian From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick forest/trees easilly 70ft tall. A 90ft height, just wouldn't allow enough of the signal to have open air, and the signal would be going through trees most of the full path. In 900Mhz, the difference between having the tower side over the tree line and below the tree line can be the difference between a quarter mile coverage and a 7 mile coverage in our market. All be it, 700Mhz does have better NLOS propogation characteristics than 900 does. I would have liked to see that height doubled. However, admittedly, it will allow much better spectrum re-use in areas that have a limited number of channels available. Spectrum reuse is one of the best ways to serve more people. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height This item alone may be the show-stopper, the poison pill that makes it useless to WISPs in much of the country. In places where the routine variation in elevation is more than 75 meters, there will be houses (subscribers) that are more than 76 meters AAT. I notice this in the areas I'm studying, both in the east and in the upper midwest. In a place like Kansas, nobody is 75m AAT. But in the woody Berkshires of Western Massachusetts, the UHF space is needed to get through the trees, and a significant share of houses are 75m AAT. Also, if you want to cover a decent radius, the access point needs to be up the hill too. 75 meters isn't a mountaintop; it's just a little rise. It makes no sense to absolutely ban fixed use at a site that is 100m AAT if the nearest protected-service contour is, say, 50 miles away. A more sensible rule would be to follow broadcast practice, and lower the ERP based on height, so that the distance to a given signal strength contour is held constant as the height rises. Hence a Class A FM station is allowed up to 15 miles, and if it is more than 300 feet AAT, then it is allowed less than the 3000 watts ERP that apply at lower heights. Maybe the lawyers want to have more petitions to argue over. At 9/23/2010 04:07 PM, Rich Harnish wrote: 65. Decision. We decline to increase the maximum permitted transmit antenna height above ground for fixed TV bands devices. As the Commission stated in the Second Report and Order, the 30 meters above ground limit was established as a balance between the benefits of increasing TV bands device transmission range and the need to minimize the impact on licensed services.129 Consistent with the Commission's stated approach in the Second Report and Order of taking a conservative approach in protecting authorized services, we find the prudent course of action is to maintain the previously adopted height limit. If, in the future, experience with TV bands devices indicates that these devices could operate at higher transmit heights without causing interference, the Commission could revisit the height limit. 66. While we expect that specifying a limit on antenna height above ground rather than above average terrain is satisfactory for controlling interference to authorized services in the majority of cases, we also recognize petitioners' concerns about the increased potential for interference in instances where a fixed TV bands device antenna is located on a local geographic high point such as a hill or mountain.130 In such cases, the distance at which a TV bands device signal could propagate would be significantly increased, thus increasing the potential for interference to authorized operations in the TV bands. We therefore conclude that it is necessary to modify our rules to limit the antenna HAAT of a fixed device as well as its antenna height above ground. In considering a limit for antenna HAAT, we need to balance the concerns for long range propagation from high points against the typical variability of ground height that occurs in areas where there are significant local high points - we do not want
Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
There is one other benefit of this No body else will be able to install higher either. Mounting lower to the ground, its more likely a WISP will be able to install their own tower, and no longer have to pay huge colocation costs on a commercial tower. I predict more houses up on the hill, being the new TVWhitespace towers. Although, aren't these low channel Whitespace omnis like giant, and weight a ton? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Webster To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height But what if you are able to use spectrum around 200 or 300 MHz? That certainly goes through trees. Brian From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick forest/trees easilly 70ft tall. A 90ft height, just wouldn't allow enough of the signal to have open air, and the signal would be going through trees most of the full path. In 900Mhz, the difference between having the tower side over the tree line and below the tree line can be the difference between a quarter mile coverage and a 7 mile coverage in our market. All be it, 700Mhz does have better NLOS propogation characteristics than 900 does. I would have liked to see that height doubled. However, admittedly, it will allow much better spectrum re-use in areas that have a limited number of channels available. Spectrum reuse is one of the best ways to serve more people. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height This item alone may be the show-stopper, the poison pill that makes it useless to WISPs in much of the country. In places where the routine variation in elevation is more than 75 meters, there will be houses (subscribers) that are more than 76 meters AAT. I notice this in the areas I'm studying, both in the east and in the upper midwest. In a place like Kansas, nobody is 75m AAT. But in the woody Berkshires of Western Massachusetts, the UHF space is needed to get through the trees, and a significant share of houses are 75m AAT. Also, if you want to cover a decent radius, the access point needs to be up the hill too. 75 meters isn't a mountaintop; it's just a little rise. It makes no sense to absolutely ban fixed use at a site that is 100m AAT if the nearest protected-service contour is, say, 50 miles away. A more sensible rule would be to follow broadcast practice, and lower the ERP based on height, so that the distance to a given signal strength contour is held constant as the height rises. Hence a Class A FM station is allowed up to 15 miles, and if it is more than 300 feet AAT, then it is allowed less than the 3000 watts ERP that apply at lower heights. Maybe the lawyers want to have more petitions to argue over. At 9/23/2010 04:07 PM, Rich Harnish wrote: 65. Decision. We decline to increase the maximum permitted transmit antenna height above ground for fixed TV bands devices. As the Commission stated in the Second Report and Order, the 30 meters above ground limit was established as a balance between the benefits of increasing TV bands device transmission range and the need to minimize the impact on licensed services.129 Consistent with the Commission's stated approach in the Second Report and Order of taking a conservative approach in protecting authorized services, we find the prudent course of action is to maintain the previously adopted height limit. If, in the future, experience with TV bands devices indicates that these devices could operate at higher transmit heights without causing interference, the Commission could revisit the height limit. 66. While we expect that specifying a limit on antenna height above ground rather than above average terrain is satisfactory for controlling interference to authorized services in the majority of cases, we also recognize petitioners' concerns about the increased potential for interference in instances where a fixed TV bands device antenna is located on a local geographic high point such as a hill or mountain.130 In such cases, the distance at which a TV bands device signal could propagate would be significantly increased, thus increasing the potential for interference to authorized operations in the TV bands. We therefore conclude that it is necessary to modify our rules to limit the antenna HAAT of a fixed device as well as its
Re: [WISPA] nanostation and canopy towers within 2 miles of each other
OOps, I did get it backwardsLOL. In that case My advice for Marco would be Reach out to the new WISP, and make sure they know you are there, and how to contact you if needed. Engineering non-interference, is better than reacting to it, for both parties. Knowing your competitor's equipment traits, limits, and options, helps one come up with ideas to co-exist. The one big advice I'd give the Canopy user to watch out for would be that, unlike the Canopy gear, the Ubiquiti gear will allow the operator to operate illegally if the operator configures itself to do so. In otherwords, they could install an AP with a Ubiquiti 20dbi antenna, and still set radio power up to 26db. (10 dbi over legal). If you run into a interference war and start to loose, examine whether the other WISP is operating within legal power or not. Just in case, they left radios at defaults, and forgot to set down to legal power. I'd also add that the Canopy subs might be more at risk if using the basic 8dbi 60 deg Canopy CPEs. (Please note, I probably have these CPE specs wrong, I'm only familiar with the 5.8G specs, and Mario mentioned 2.4G). The Ubiquiti platform is really cheap to add high gain CPEs. It would be worth taking a look at what subs might have CPEs with their beamwidths looking in the direction of the Ubiquiti tower 2 miles away. Its also relevent to examine the AP height of the deployments, to get an idea if the CPEs will be pointing to the sky, or horizontally. Interference may not only be a factor of AP interference. Reason is APs will be low power under 36db. But the CPE rules that allow high gain at the CPE will make the CPE transmits travel much farther at stronger strength. So, its feasible new CPEs of competitor could interfere with your CPEs. And its feasible a High gain 2.4G CPE could transmit it signal 30 miles, and have a high signal at only 2 miles. This is not a big issue with 5.3 and 5.4, because the CPE EIRP is fixed to the same as the AP. But with 2.4, it cold be an issue. ON day one that the Ubiquiti APs are installed will not tell you the amount of interference you will get. Every new Ubiquiti CPE installed could add to the interference. Its definately helps if the APs are mounted higher, so CPEs point up. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:59 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] nanostation and canopy towers within 2 miles of each other Hey Tom, Great post with great info. have no quams with the info you have presented. Just wanted to point it.. that I think you read Marco's email backwards... What I understood from Marco's post is that HE is currently operating the Moto Canopy Tower, and a competitor is getting ready to light up a Ubiquity tower approx. 2 miles away from his tower. :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 9/23/2010 7:03 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Marco, Be aware of one very important principle when deploying Ubiquiti MIMO With them, you can NOT disable either of the polarities, both polarities always hear noise. In mode 8-15, double the capacity is acheived, each pol with unique data. Even in Modes 0-7 (single chain), I believe the same signal gets transmitted across both pols, and listens on both pols for same signal. The benefit of this is more resilience to multi-path fade, and a theoretical 3db increase in power on the receive. The negative of this is that the noise from BOTH polarities is heard. So... Lets say Horizontal pol is noise free, but verticle pol is full of noise. There is no way to steer around the noise on verticle pol. There is no way to select using Horizontal pol only without the noise of the verticle antenna heard. SO How does this apply to Co-existence with Canopy bearby? Well, most Canopy APs use Verticle polarity only. Therefore, the Canopies tower will likely use most of the Verticle polarity channels, and your ubiquitis will likely hear a lot more noise on Verticle channels. If you used equipment that was a single pol design, you'd be able to select Horizontal pol only, and you'd be able to steer around the Canopy easily. With Mimo Ubiquiti, you wont have that option anymore. As well, the Canopy user is locked to 20Mhz channels, and wont be able to make room for you that way either. So... you should be prepared that you are likely going to be fighting interference with the Canopy users. The Canopy user will have one advantage, they'll only need 3db SNR to survive your noise, where you'll need atleast 8-10db SNR to survive their noise. (Ubiquiti would work better at 18-25db SNR). You will have two advantages though One, your Ubiquitis can be set to 10Mhz channels, adjustable in 5Mhz increasments, to find the holes between the Canopy's selected channels. Two
Re: [WISPA] nanostation and canopy towers within 2 miles of each other
Marco, Be aware of one very important principle when deploying Ubiquiti MIMO With them, you can NOT disable either of the polarities, both polarities always hear noise. In mode 8-15, double the capacity is acheived, each pol with unique data. Even in Modes 0-7 (single chain), I believe the same signal gets transmitted across both pols, and listens on both pols for same signal. The benefit of this is more resilience to multi-path fade, and a theoretical 3db increase in power on the receive. The negative of this is that the noise from BOTH polarities is heard. So... Lets say Horizontal pol is noise free, but verticle pol is full of noise. There is no way to steer around the noise on verticle pol. There is no way to select using Horizontal pol only without the noise of the verticle antenna heard. SO How does this apply to Co-existence with Canopy bearby? Well, most Canopy APs use Verticle polarity only. Therefore, the Canopies tower will likely use most of the Verticle polarity channels, and your ubiquitis will likely hear a lot more noise on Verticle channels. If you used equipment that was a single pol design, you'd be able to select Horizontal pol only, and you'd be able to steer around the Canopy easily. With Mimo Ubiquiti, you wont have that option anymore. As well, the Canopy user is locked to 20Mhz channels, and wont be able to make room for you that way either. So... you should be prepared that you are likely going to be fighting interference with the Canopy users. The Canopy user will have one advantage, they'll only need 3db SNR to survive your noise, where you'll need atleast 8-10db SNR to survive their noise. (Ubiquiti would work better at 18-25db SNR). You will have two advantages though One, your Ubiquitis can be set to 10Mhz channels, adjustable in 5Mhz increasments, to find the holes between the Canopy's selected channels. Two, the Ubiquitis are higher power. You'll be able to go up to 24-26dbm at the CPE (depending on modulation), where Canopy may be limited to 22dbm, and Ubiquiti has more flexible CPE options to choose higher gain antennas, if needed. If the Canopy tower is two miles away, you should be able to carefully select your channel plan to avoid interference, but noise at your tower will still be a big concern to avoid. I'd highly recommend that you go all out on the Ubiquiti Tower, and in addition to using the UBiquiti Antennas, use the custom third party shields made for them to increase the Front/Back isolation of the antennas. These Ubiquiti Radio are really really sweet. And their wireless dirver appear to handle noise well. But its still all about the math, and with Ubiquiti MIMO, it does hear MORE noise, because of the dual pol design. Note, if you ever run into trouble where there the Verticle pol noise is to severe for the AP It is possible to select single chain mode 0-7, and cap the verticle pol antenna port on the radio (disconnect verticle pol antenna feed), then your radio would just hear on Horizontal pol. (I believe Chain0 is Horizontal pol, from what we've determined, but you'd need to confirm that yourself). However, I can not vouge for whether there would be any long term harm to the radio because of that, meaning whether it would hurt to operate the radio without an antenna load on the second chain polarity. But we've operated successfully like that at some sights for a while. Another technique that can help is to point only one 120 degree antenna in the direction of the Canopy tower. The mentality here is to send the very least amount of noise and channel usage in their direction. It will be easier for the Canopy tower to vacate and leave a single channel for your use, in that direction. Anything you point at them could interfere with them, and vice versa, so reduce the number of channels pointed to them. Most ISPs can spare a channel, but cant spare many. So give them a solution for non-interference, that impacts them the least. They were there first, and would likely protect their turf, the last thing you want is a noise battle with a 3db SNR TDD radio. The Ubiquiti freq scanner works well, to find the best free channel to use for each of your sectors. That will come in handy, determining what channels are being used by the Canopy. . Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Marco Coelho coelh...@gmail.com To: motor...@afmug.org; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 12:57 PM Subject: [WISPA] nanostation and canopy towers within 2 miles of each other I've got a competitor getting ready to light a nanostation based tower within 2 miles of one of my Canopy 2.4 towers. What kind of interference should I expect? Listening to this guy, their radios are magic and can shoot through trees and over hills. Totally overcoming line of site issues. Is he smoking something strange
Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick forest/trees easilly 70ft tall. A 90ft height, just wouldn't allow enough of the signal to have open air, and the signal would be going through trees most of the full path. In 900Mhz, the difference between having the tower side over the tree line and below the tree line can be the difference between a quarter mile coverage and a 7 mile coverage in our market. All be it, 700Mhz does have better NLOS propogation characteristics than 900 does. I would have liked to see that height doubled. However, admittedly, it will allow much better spectrum re-use in areas that have a limited number of channels available. Spectrum reuse is one of the best ways to serve more people. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height This item alone may be the show-stopper, the poison pill that makes it useless to WISPs in much of the country. In places where the routine variation in elevation is more than 75 meters, there will be houses (subscribers) that are more than 76 meters AAT. I notice this in the areas I'm studying, both in the east and in the upper midwest. In a place like Kansas, nobody is 75m AAT. But in the woody Berkshires of Western Massachusetts, the UHF space is needed to get through the trees, and a significant share of houses are 75m AAT. Also, if you want to cover a decent radius, the access point needs to be up the hill too. 75 meters isn't a mountaintop; it's just a little rise. It makes no sense to absolutely ban fixed use at a site that is 100m AAT if the nearest protected-service contour is, say, 50 miles away. A more sensible rule would be to follow broadcast practice, and lower the ERP based on height, so that the distance to a given signal strength contour is held constant as the height rises. Hence a Class A FM station is allowed up to 15 miles, and if it is more than 300 feet AAT, then it is allowed less than the 3000 watts ERP that apply at lower heights. Maybe the lawyers want to have more petitions to argue over. At 9/23/2010 04:07 PM, Rich Harnish wrote: 65. Decision. We decline to increase the maximum permitted transmit antenna height above ground for fixed TV bands devices. As the Commission stated in the Second Report and Order, the 30 meters above ground limit was established as a balance between the benefits of increasing TV bands device transmission range and the need to minimize the impact on licensed services.129 Consistent with the Commission's stated approach in the Second Report and Order of taking a conservative approach in protecting authorized services, we find the prudent course of action is to maintain the previously adopted height limit. If, in the future, experience with TV bands devices indicates that these devices could operate at higher transmit heights without causing interference, the Commission could revisit the height limit. 66. While we expect that specifying a limit on antenna height above ground rather than above average terrain is satisfactory for controlling interference to authorized services in the majority of cases, we also recognize petitioners' concerns about the increased potential for interference in instances where a fixed TV bands device antenna is located on a local geographic high point such as a hill or mountain.130 In such cases, the distance at which a TV bands device signal could propagate would be significantly increased, thus increasing the potential for interference to authorized operations in the TV bands. We therefore conclude that it is necessary to modify our rules to limit the antenna HAAT of a fixed device as well as its antenna height above ground. In considering a limit for antenna HAAT, we need to balance the concerns for long range propagation from high points against the typical variability of ground height that occurs in areas where there are significant local high points - we do not want to preclude fixed devices from a large number of sites in areas where there are rolling hills or a large number of relatively high points that do not generally provide open, line-of-sight paths for propagation over long distances. We find that limiting the fixed device antenna HAAT to 106 meters (350 feet), as calculated by the TV bands database, provides an appropriate balance of these concerns. We will therefore restrict fixed TV bands devices from operating at locations where the HAAT of the ground is greater than 76 meters; this will allow use of an antenna at a height of up to 30 meters above ground level to provide an antenna HAAT of 106 meters. Accordingly, we are specifying that a fixed TV bands device antenna may not be located at a site where the ground HAAT is greater than 75 meters
Re: [WISPA] 189 mile wifi link- 5.8G Ubiquiti
Pretty impressive for 5.8Ghz. I'm aware of numerous long 2.4G links, but this is clearly a record for 5.8G. http://www.gizmag.com/go/7878/ It was even over water, all be it, it was also on top of a mountain a mile high :-) They said they pulled off 5 mbps. Its funny, I remember conversatiosn when SR5s first came out, where some people stated they wouldn't risk using them for long links over 10miles or so, because a low price product likely was lower grade. I got to say, way to go Ubiquiti! Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc 301-515-7774 IntAirNet - Fixed Wireless Broadband WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Charge to move equipment
Depends on the exactations set at time of original order.
We sell a monthly service and guarantee that it will work.
If it doesn;t work, they dont pay, or they switch providers.
We also charge well for primary first install.
We also have lots of wirelinbe competition that does not have risks of
foliage growth.
HAven't you seen the DISH versus Cable Commercials bashing DISH for all the
consumer frustration having to install, maintain and fix their own DISH that
is alledged troublesome?
We combated that impression by taking responsibilty for any thing that might
incur in the future. We are full service. Not only are they buying service
but they are buying an implied service maintenance agreement to make sure it
keeps working well. Thats why we charge a bit more than other commodity
providers, we warrantee the broadband experience on an on going basis.
So no we do not charge to move an antenna if that is what is required to
maintain quality signal and service.
BUT... any equipment move that is NOT required to fix service quality, we
charge for. BUT we low ball the price, because... WE DONT WANT END USERS
TOUCHING OUR GEAR AND INSTALLING IT WRONG, BECAUSE THEN WE ARE FORCED TO
WARRANTEE SERVICE QUALITY ON AN ON GOING BASIS AND HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE THAT
CUSTOMER MIGHT HAVE SCREWED THE INSTALL UP AND MOVED IT. EVeryone thinks
they are a technician and they are not. So we make it mandatory to pay us
to move any wireless gear. IF they touch it, it voids warrantee, and we
charge heavily full retail to fix it after they touch it.
So... We will move gear at consumer request for just about any reason, but
charge a low price to do it. I recognize low price is a matter of one's
own perception.
We normally charge $90/hour, not to exceed more than Half-Price of the
advertised Install Fee. We figure they deserve a reduced rate if they have
been a good subscriber of ours for a while.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
- Original Message -
From: ~NGL~ n...@ngl.net
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 4:52 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Charge to move equipment
Do you charge when you have to relocate and rewire the equipment at a
clients location, because the trees have grown to a point where the signal
is very weak? If so at what rate?
NGL
--
From: Chris Gotstein ch...@uplogon.com
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 1:19 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Convert Single Pol to Dual Pol
Thanks guys!
Chris Gotstein, Network Engineer, U.P. Logon/Computer Connection U.P.
http://uplogon.com | +1 906 774 4847 | ch...@uplogon.com
On 9/20/2010 3:14 PM, Philip Dorr wrote:
DA5W-29-DP-FEED
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Chris Gotstein ch...@uplogon.com
wrote:
I'm having a heck of a time finding the dual pol feed horns. Anyone
have a part number for them?
Chris Gotstein, Network Engineer, U.P. Logon/Computer Connection U.P.
http://uplogon.com | +1 906 774 4847 | ch...@uplogon.com
On 9/17/2010 5:42 PM, David E. Smith wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 14:36, Chris Gotstein ch...@uplogon.com
mailto:ch...@uplogon.com wrote:
We have some older Pac Wireless 2' 5.8Mhz 29db parabolic dishes
serving
as a PtP link. We are going to be upgrading the radios connected
to
these dishes, and the new radios support dual polarity. Does
anyone
know if you can just swap out the feed horn on the dishes from
single
pol to dual pol? Would sure be easier than hauling up a whole new
dish
setup. If this would work, anyone got sources that i can buy just
a
feed horn? Thanks.
I forget where we bought the feedhorns from, but this can be done.
We actually just replaced two of them, doing exactly what you
describe.
There was a catch, though. The feedhorn has two N connectors, a few
inches and ninety degrees apart. One of the two dishes had a smaller
hole in the center, and my climber had to take up snips and a rasp,
and
basically put a small notch in the center of the dish, to get the new
feedhorn to fit. The other dish was older, or newer, or something, and
already had a suitable small notch in the center.
David Smith
MVN.net
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
WISPA Wireless List: wireless
Re: [WISPA] Taking the plunge
I'd argue you'd be better off trying to add a second AP to the sector, and be satisfied with fewer customers per sector. That would also allow you to ahve a smoother migration, allowing both APs to have some of the customers during the migration. If you are running 10Mhz, and 120 sector, there is a pretty could chance you should be able to come up with the extra channels to run two APs simultaneously on the sector. On a side note, we do run Ubiquiti AirMax successfully using just a single Antenna pol, in some cases. We wanted the N models so we could run spectrum scans and TDMA. We just capped the Chain1 port, and connected only the chain0 port to an antenna, and selected appropriate max modualtion. Obviously, more capacity would be avilable if both chains were used to increase capacity, but that is not a requirement to use the Ubiquiti. As well, better NLOS would be available if both pols were used for same data. I guess my point is, single pol CPEs can still be used without replacement, just the additional capacity cant be realized nor TDMA used if both CPEs are not all Ubqt. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Steve Barnes st...@pcswin.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 2:16 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Taking the plunge I guess I didn't make myself clear. They are not concerned about slow speeds of downloads more of a matter that there is 60 clients hitting an AP with no TDMA or any kind of timing and they start griping about their VOIP. I was always told that on a 20 mhz 802.11b/g network that you were best to stay under 40 clients. On a 10 Mhz 802.11g not to go much over 60 Clients. I see that the Airmax with the TDMA will handle a higher density of clients per AP. Is my thinking wrong on these numbers? Steve Barnes RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 1:57 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Taking the plunge Or have you tried different channels? Is it a newer radio in the MT so you can do a spectrum analysis? I would expect up to 15 megs aggregate out of a 10Mhz 802.11a AP and if you are at 1/3 of that then bandwidth isn't an issue. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.com wrote: Can you go to a bigger channel size? Are the CPE's running any form of QoS? On 09/13/2010 01:43 PM, Steve Barnes wrote: At peak times I am running about 4-6M 95th percentile on this one AP. Steve Barnes RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 1:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Taking the plunge What kind of bandwidth are you pushing through the ap now? On Sep 13, 2010 1:32 PM, Steve Barnes st...@pcswin.com wrote: All my APs are Mikrotik. My CPE's are a mix of Tranzeo and UBNT. I have a AP with 58 Clients on it and starting to get complaints about slowdowns. They are all setup 10 MHz channel 802.11g. This is a tower that due to contractual issues I cannot add anymore equipment. So I am considering taking down the Mikrotik and 120 degree sector and putting up a UBNT Rocket and Airmax 120 sector. It will take time to physically switch all my clients to new UBNT Airmax equipment but would like to get it done before the snow flies. Has anyone down this? Success? I know I cannot turn on Airmax till everyone is on the UBNT with that capability but does it work fine till you get it on? Steve Barnes RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] netflix/hulu IP's
In areas where I already have 20mb line of sight sectors, yeah, no problem. But lets face it, to handle video, ISPs are going to have to make network upgrades at every sector and CPE, sooner or later. Who's gonna pay for that? Should I have to give up my profits this year, so that it can be re-invested into my network once again, so Hulu and NetFlix can continue to get rich? Even if I replace just the pre-existing customer CPE with a Ubiquiti, at $89/radio, that almost a year ROI to break even, IF I still charge the customer an additiaonl $9.95/month for their ability to use NetFlix and Hulu. Its sorta like fund raising. I got an idea... How about asking Hulu, NetFlix, and Google, to co-sign my Loan/Lease papers or better yet Lend me the money, to make the network upgrades that are necessary for my customers to use VIDEO adequately. I dont see them passing out Loan applications, nor do I see their CFO with a pen in hand. I am sick and tired of this attitude that consumers are entitled and content providers are entitled. They are not entitled to a free ride. I am not getting rich, and the facts are the majority of my customers need me. I provide something to them that they need. And video wasn't one of them initially. I never signed up for delivering Video. I CAN deliver video, but they have to pay for it, if they want it. Its not my responsibilty to pay for it. There is nothing worse than a moocher. Thats all these content providers do, looking for a free ride, mooch mooch mooch, while they sneak off to the bank with their large paycheck. Sure... I'm perfectly fine with the bandwdith management method of control. Bandwdith limit video web sites to 64kbps, and for $9.95 I'll bump it up to 1mbps. As a disclaimer... I dont currently block or limit anything. I mostly serve high capacity business, so I have not been hit much by the video bandwdith abuse yet, so I have been able to overlook the issue, and have not had to take any action. And as long as it is not a problem, I have no need to address it. But one day it will be a problem. And EVERYONE should ask, who should pay for it?. In some cases, maybe the ISP should pay for it. For example, If they are heathilly profitable, and have reach comfortable scale and finance abilty, and in a competitive environment, maybe it is then their responsibilty to stay competitive and upgrade at their own cost. But it can not be assumed that all ISPs are in that position nor that all consumers are in that position.. Whats important to me is that laws are not made that empower moochers to have the right to unlimited mooching, at the expense of honorable businessmen access providers. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jeromie Reeves jree...@18-30chat.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 3:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] netflix/hulu IP's Why not bandwidth shape them down to something reasonable? I find 1.1~1.2mbit for netflix and it looks fine. they will each 5mbit if you let it. This keeps things pretty manageable here.b On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote: OK, so should we be doing DNS redirecting. Redirect hulu.com to allowvideo.com for $9.95 Shopping Cart item. Alacart content? Its no different than Microsoft Windows XP, being allowed to bundle Iexplorer and MSN with WindowsOS, as long as they included signup links for downloading and subscribing to NetScape and one ro two other Big Internet Providers. As long as its not discriminatory Make sure to include an Allow Item for EVERY Video Provider you can think of Example Welcome to Allow Video.com Shopping Cart. 1. Enable Hulu $9.95 2. Enable NetFlix $9.95 3. Enable GoogleTV $9.95 4. Enable ESPN360 $9.95 (Note... would redirect to third party ISP partnering with your ISP able to deliver an ESPN360 compatible IP or cached data :-) 5. Enable MYISP TV (Note: charge for access to your own Video services that you self host/offer, so its availble accross other ISPs also from this site, and so non-discriminary) Disclaimer: This site/fee allows access to reach the above video provider sites. Access to enter and obtain the site's offered services and content is not covered by this fee. Additional subscription fees may be required directly by the Video content provider. View their sites for their fees, terms and conditions.. So. Comcast my video access provider charges consumers $9.95 for HBO and $9.95 more for Showtime alacart, why cant I as the Internet Access provider charge my subs the same? The problem is NOT charging for content. The problem is not allowing some to buy access to content. The problem is not allowing all to carry or resell the content. The facts are...Verizon and Comcasts wont charge for content, if we are allowed to carry content and we
Re: [WISPA] netflix/hulu IP's
Nobody has a free ride in this, though. Netflix/Hulu/whoever is paying TV and movie companies for the right to redistribute content via the Internet, and is paying Akamai/Limelight/whoever for bandwidth to do the actual distribution. The end-user is paying Netflix for access to their collection of movies, and is paying you for Internet connectivity in order to receive bits from the Internet (in this case, bits from Netflix). Sure, That is all true and relevent. BUT... The reality is that Content providers, Consumers, and Regulators are making assumption on other people's (access provider's) business models that they have no right to make. The fact is... Access Providers have provided services and priced services on the over-subscription model since day one, and its no secret to any Internet professional. Content providers are building business models based on network designs that dont yet exist large scale (super high capacity undersubscribed bandwidth), and trying to force new rule upon Access Providers to change to a no or low oversubscription model. And consumers are assuming that they have something that they dont, and that was never promised to them either. That is poor planning on the Content provider and Consumer's part, and they are trying to hold Access Providers responsible for the content provider's poor and unrealistic planning. I am NOT against content providers and consumers encouraging and driving Access Providers to step up the game and offer higher capacities at lower prices, and including more for the same price. That is what Market pressure and competition is all about. What I am against is forcing Access providers to do it. And I'm against the world suggesting Access Providers some how are obligated to, or they are the bad guy. I think its wonderful that Netflix and hulu want to offer consumers good value, and its nice that Money Trees are willing to join forces with these content providers to try serve all of America over night. But what is wrong is assuming that Access Providers, the companies that actually have to build something of distance, should be capable of matching the growth rate to upgrade capacity to all of America overnight. The NetFlix model is flawed. They build a race car without first building a Race Track. Who's gonna be interested in building the race track, if their is no upside offered to the builder of some sort? Facts are... If you want to get to places quicker, you can buy a Ferrari, but it isn't going to solve the problem.. There is still a speed limit, to keep it safe. There is still a HOV lane to keep down congestion, and the one man Ferrari driver still cant use it. And there might be tolls every now and then where needed to help pay for the mainenance of the road. The Road Owners make the rules of the Road. And I'd be fine with charging my customers one penny per bit (or buy a whole byte for only six cents!) but the customers probably wouldn't like that plan very much at all. If your users are okay with this, go right ahead. That demonstrates exactly the problem. My customers would not like that for pay method either. Nobody's customers would today, because they have been let to believe that they are entitled to better. False misleading marketing needs to be stopped, and consumers need to be educated. Customers shouldn;t have a problem with paying for what they use. BUt they do. Why is this? They have no problem paying for their electric, water, Soda, gas, cell phone minutes, or whatever other product based on what they are used. But there is this HUge hippocracy against Access Providers. At the end of the day, this all boils down to what over subscription rate is fair for a Access Provider to deliver, and still advertise their product as a given speed bandwidth. And again, this really is a decission for the Access PRovider that has stats and costs for its own operations, which is confidential information. Sure, I agree, Cable and FIOS are around the corner, and if we (competitive access providers) dont adapt and upgrade, we will be left behind. But... I'll leave with one critical point.. How do we accomplish upgrading and adapting in the faster possible way? With Money, right? How do we get money? We need to raise the funds to make these upgrades sooner than later. I see two low hanging fruit sources to put up this money Consumers that can save money by using our service and Content providers paying their share, now when we still have leverage to encourage them to pony up the cash to fund the upgrades. I know what happens when Docsis3 and FIOS come, and the WISP network is NOT yet upgraded. It means lost customers. I wish I could upgrade everything over night, but I cant, not without money. But the more I charge today, the bigger chance I have to earn more money to re-invest, so I'm in a stronger position to compete when Docsis3 and FIOS come. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL
Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Providers
Not so fast... Sure, if the other party wont let you out of a contract, the ethical thing to do is honor it. BUT... its not unethical for the two parties involved to mutually agree to change an agreement for mutual benefit. Most contracts specifically allow that. There are many reasons a party might want to let the other party out of a contract term or renegotiate it. A vendor does not benefit if a Buyer goes out of business. A Vendor does not benefit if a Buyer is locked in for another year at a high rate, if that rate forces the buyer to signup with another provider at a lower rate for the rest of enternity. Its called customer retention. When the market changes sometime contracts need to adapt with the new market conditions. One must also ask what it might cost to inforce a contract, and sometimes taht is more than the revenue that would be discounted by keeping the custoemr happy and retained long term and paying on time. I'm not going to mention any names, but at ISPCON, someone I considered a mentor spoke at a session, and what he learned was So what if there is a contract... Hold out, and convince your vendors why they should work with you on price. While under contract, he was able to get most vendors to lower prices, for mutual benefit. Admittedly, ATT is not like a company that would easily budge on contract terms, expecially in an underserved area where they are a near monopoly, but it doesn't mean that they wont. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson t...@ida.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 7:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Providers So what you are saying is that YOU shouldn't have to uphold YOUR end of the contract? How does that make sense? Travis Microserv On 9/1/2010 1:41 PM, Eric Rogers wrote: I am looking for multiple connections to the internet. We currently have ATT Fiber and IPs. We want to look at redundancy in terms of becoming a BGP peer, and purchasing our own IP addresses. The ONLY other provider in our area is Comcast. Has anyone worked with them to do any BGP peering? What really rocked my boat was that I am seeing new ISPs signing up with ATT Opt-E-Man with 100 MB circuits for $2600/mo. That is less than what I am paying for my 50 MB circuit. I called my sales rep and they stated that I could get a 100 MB circuit for $4200/mo and because I am under contract for another year, there is nothing they can do for price...so pretty much they are saying to me that they want new customers, and anyone under contract they can gouge as long as I am under contract... When can we get rid of these monopolies?!?!? Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
