Re: [WISPA] 900MHz band

[GarrettShankle]

That sounds like complete malarkey to me.  I’m sure cambium would like to hear 
about that as I’m happily running all my 450i sectors in some areas at 10 or 
20mhz. 

 

I was once told by an well-schooled rf engineer that 900mhz required frequency 
hopping to be legal. 

 

If your power is correct and your OOBE isn’t too high than they are just 
blowing smoke. You might want to rent your own spectrum analyzer just to be 
sure you aren’t bleeding too far with the edges. The M900 runs pretty dirty for 
sure. 

 

 

Garrett Shankle CWNA

Wireless Administrator

Virginia Broadband LLC

540-829-1700 (ex. 413)

Vabb.com

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org  On Behalf Of Josh 
Luthman
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 3:59 PM
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 900MHz band

 

Isn't the device FCC certified?




 

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

 

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Steve Barnes mailto:st...@pcswin.com> > wrote:

We had an issue this week where we had a Power company have a 50K licensed band 
at 901.152 Mhz for power meter reading.  We have still a few older links that 
are 900MHz on Yagi’s to individuals in deep woods.  I had to move channels all 
over the place as a 902-912MHz 10Mhz channel with UBNT does not have edge 
filters that don’t pollute down to 901MHz.  So moving to the middle of the band 
cleaned up the noise on their license.  

 

Now they are claiming that 10MHz channel width in the 900MHz ISM band is 
Illegal.  That the channel width is to be no larger than 8MHz. I have read all 
kinds of ISM docs from the FCC and I see no mention of max channel widths.  
They made mention of talking to the FCC if we didn’t fix the issue.  

 

Proof they are wrong any one?   This is a national company with a $10K Anritsu 
analyzer they hired in to find the noise. 

 

Steve Barnes

Wireless Operations Manager

New Lisbon Broadband

  NLBC.COM

  PCSWIN.COM

765-584-2288 ext:1101

 


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

 

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

Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum

[garrettshankle]

 
 It's not that I don't want the band used by my competitors, I just want it to 
remain a useful spectrum for what its best at: long range PtP communications. 
Our competitors have access to the band the same way we do and that's a good 
thing. 
 
 We absolutely need the part 101 bands to guarantee our towers have enough 
future capacity where the fiber doesn't run. And 6 Ghz is the only band with 
the reach for many of our locations. There's just no replacement for long 
links. It's not "legacy" its vital. 
 
  And yes we would gladly forgo unlicensed use of the band if it meant 6 Ghz 
stayed useful as PtP spectrum, for everyone. We're open to lightly licensing or 
secondary use licensing options but only if the band remains PtP oriented.   
 
 
Garrett Shankle
Senior Field Technician
Virginia Broadband LLC.
(540)-829-1700
 
 
-Original Message-
From: "Mike Hammett" 
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 8:43am
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 
101 spectrum



There are plenty of paths around here where you can't get any 6 GHz licenses in 
any meaningful capacity.


-Mike Hammett[ Intelligent Computing Solutions ]( http://www.ics-il.com/ )[ 
 ]( https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL )[  ]( 
https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb )[  ]( 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions )[  ]( 
https://twitter.com/ICSIL )[ Midwest Internet Exchange ]( 
http://www.midwest-ix.com/ )[  ]( https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix )[  ]( 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange )[  ]( 
https://twitter.com/mdwestix )[ The Brothers WISP ]( 
http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/ )[  ]( https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp 
)[  ]( https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg )
From: "Mark Radabaugh" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 6:04:18 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 
101 spectrum


The proposals protect Part 101 links using a database system.
It’s curious that you would give up access to potentially >1000Mhz of clean 
mid-band spectrum because you don’t want your competitors using it.   Given the 
current limited amount of spectrum available for PTMP use how do you propose to 
serve the demands of your customers without obtaining additional spectrum?   
You said “all licensed PTP links would be at risk”.   I don’t believe that is 
the case here - we are only discussing 6Ghz which is largely used (in our 
industry) for long range legacy PTP links.   It’s certainly important where 
it’s used at Mike Meluskey pointed out, but looking at the numbers the band 
shows pretty light usage.
How much of the 6Ghz spectrum are you currently using for PTP links?
Mark 


On Jun 4, 2017, at 8:45 PM, [ garrettshan...@vabb.com ]( 
mailto:garrettshan...@vabb.com ) wrote:

  I think the 6Ghz band need to stay for PtP links only. As for band sharing I 
think that the need for reliable wireless back-haul far outweighs any benefit 
of moving the band completely to part 15.
 
  Use of this band for PtMP applications should not be permitted and all 
installations should require registration and professional installation. As for 
higher power and larger channels: I do think the band could use some updates. 
But not at the expense of the current links.
 
 We've seen the 5.1Ghz band fill in with noise almost as soon as certifications 
rolled out. I don't want hundreds of "Xfinity wifi" SSID's in 6ghz as well.
 
 While I don't think our company alone counts as significant opposition, you 
can count us as "significantly opposed".
 
 
Garrett Shankle
Senior Field Technician
Virginia Broadband LLC.
(540)-829-1700
 
-Original Message-From: [ mike.l...@gmail.com ]( 
mailto:mike.l...@gmail.com )Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2017 7:35pmTo: "WISPA General 
List" <[ wireless@wispa.org ]( mailto:wireless@wispa.org )>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 
Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum

+1000> On Jun 4, 2017, at 16:23, Seth Mattinen <[ se...@rollernet.us ]( 
mailto:se...@rollernet.us )> wrote:> >> On 6/2/17 2:12 PM, Mark Radabaugh 
wrote:>> I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the 
>> membership and for those who use them if there would be significant >> 
opposition to using the spectrum for Point to Multipoint.> > > I think that if 
the history of behavior with unlicensed is any > indication, then all licensed 
PTP links will be at risk of seeing > substantial interference by idiots and 
would be at high risk of being > forced offline.> > ~Seth> 
___> Wireless mailing list> [ 
Wireless@wispa.org ]( mailto:Wireless@wispa.org )> [ 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ]( 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 

Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum

[garrettshankle]

  I think the 6Ghz band need to stay for PtP links only. As for band sharing I 
think that the need for reliable wireless back-haul far outweighs any benefit 
of moving the band completely to part 15.
 
  Use of this band for PtMP applications should not be permitted and all 
installations should require registration and professional installation. As for 
higher power and larger channels: I do think the band could use some updates. 
But not at the expense of the current links. 
 
 We've seen the 5.1Ghz band fill in with noise almost as soon as certifications 
rolled out. I don't want hundreds of "Xfinity wifi" SSID's in 6ghz as well. 
 
 While I don't think our company alone counts as significant opposition, you 
can count us as "significantly opposed".
 
 
Garrett Shankle
Senior Field Technician
Virginia Broadband LLC.
(540)-829-1700
 


-Original Message-
From: mike.l...@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2017 7:35pm
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 
101 spectrum



+1000

> On Jun 4, 2017, at 16:23, Seth Mattinen  wrote:
> 
>> On 6/2/17 2:12 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>> I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the 
>> membership and for those who use them if there would be significant 
>> opposition to using the spectrum for Point to Multipoint.
> 
> 
> I think that if the history of behavior with unlicensed is any 
> indication, then all licensed PTP links will be at risk of seeing 
> substantial interference by idiots and would be at high risk of being 
> forced offline.
> 
> ~Seth
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] New NEC rule it may hurt WISPs

[garrettshankle]

 Based on that interpretation Dish and Dierct-tv would not be completely exempt 
as they use power over Coax for some of their technology. Hughesnet and Exeede 
would certainly be affected as well. That would completely destroy their cheap 
contractor business model.
 
 This is honestly hilarious. Don't expect this to go quietly.


-Original Message-
From: "Brett A Mansfield" 
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 1:56pm
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] New NEC rule it may hurt WISPs



So if this is correct, my installers have to be licensed electricians? Or is 
the consensus that we are exempt? If I have to hire licensed electricians for 
the installs it's going to be very expensive and I'll have to stop waiving 
install fees. Based on what I've seen though we are excluded.

Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield

On May 12, 2017, at 11:44 AM, James Wilson <[ ja...@ridgecomms.com ]( 
mailto:ja...@ridgecomms.com )> wrote:



Maybe the device can be considered the POE injector? 


On May 12, 2017 1:42 PM, "Paul McNary" <[ c...@northmo.net ]( 
mailto:c...@northmo.net )> wrote:


So does that indicate that Dish and direct tv will also not be exempt in his 
interpretation?
Paul

On 5/12/2017 12:32 PM, Mitch wrote:
Just got off the phone with our local State Inspector
His take is if the device is outside and NOT getting power
from inside the property it is located at then it is exempt (such as
telco and CATV).
If the outdoor device gets power from inside the property
then it is NOT exempt.
This is how I read it
Mitch
 
 

On 05/12/2017 11:16 AM, [ garrettshan...@vabb.com ]( 
mailto:garrettshan...@vabb.com ) wrote:
Considering V.A. doesn't have a separate certification for low voltage, I  
certainly hope we're excluded. It would be difficult to get all of our 
technicians though a 3 year apprenticeship as required by law for a full 
certification.


 -Original Message-
 From: "Matt Hoppes" [  ]( 
mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net )
 Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 12:10pm
 To: "WISPA General List" [  ]( mailto:wireless@wispa.org )
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] New NEC rule it may hurt WISPs



Ummm. We are exclusively  excluded. You even highlighted it. 

 On May 12, 2017, at 11:50 AM, Mitch <[ mi...@abetterwireless.com ]( 
mailto:mi...@abetterwireless.com )> wrote:


Looks like all installers will have to be licensed Electricians
 for everything and anything that connects to a power source
 Am I reading wrong?



NFPA 70: DOCUMENT SCOPE
 
90.2 Scope.
(A) Covered. This Code covers the installation and removal of electrical 
conductors, equipment, and raceways; signaling and communications conductors, 
equipment, and raceways; and optical fiber cables and raceways for the 
following:
(1) Public and private premises, including buildings, structures, mobile homes, 
recreational vehicles, and floating buildings
(2) Yards, lots, parking lots, carnivals, and industrial substations
(3) Installations of conductors and equipment that connect to the supply of 
electricity
(4) Installations used by the electric utility, such as office buildings, 
warehouses, garages, machine shops, and recreational buildings, that are not an 
integral part of a generating plant, substation, or control center
(B) Not Covered. This Code does not cover the following:
(1) Installations in ships, watercraft other than floating buildings, railway 
rolling stock, aircraft, or automotive vehicles other than mobile homes and 
recreational vehicles
Informational Note: Although the scope of this Code indicates that the Code 
does not cover installations in ships, portions of this Code are incorporated 
by reference into Title 46, Code of
Federal Regulations, Parts 110–113.
(2) Installations underground in mines and self-propelled mobile surface mining 
machinery and its attendant electrical trailing cable
(3) Installations of railways for generation, transformation, transmission, 
energy storage, or distribution of power used exclusively for operation of 
rolling stock or installations used exclusively for signaling and 
communications purposes
(4) Installations of communications equipment under the exclusive control of 
communications utilities located outdoors or in building spaces used 
exclusively for such installations
(5) Installations under the exclusive control of an electric utility where such 
installations
a. Consist of service drops or service laterals, and associated metering, or
b. Are on property owned or leased by the electric utility for the purpose of 
communications, metering, generation, control, transformation, transmission, 
energy storage, or distribution of electric energy, or
c. Are located in legally established easements or rights-of-way, or
d. Are located by other written agreements either designated by or recognized 
by public service commissions, utility commissions, or other regulatory 
agencies having 

Re: [WISPA] New NEC rule it may hurt WISPs

[garrettshankle]

Considering V.A. doesn't have a separate certification for low voltage, I  
certainly hope we're excluded. It would be difficult to get all of our 
technicians though a 3 year apprenticeship as required by law for a full 
certification.


-Original Message-
From: "Matt Hoppes" 
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 12:10pm
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] New NEC rule it may hurt WISPs



Ummm. We are exclusively  excluded. You even highlighted it. 

On May 12, 2017, at 11:50 AM, Mitch <[ mi...@abetterwireless.com ]( 
mailto:mi...@abetterwireless.com )> wrote:


Looks like all installers will have to be licensed Electricians
 for everything and anything that connects to a power source
 Am I reading wrong?



NFPA 70: DOCUMENT SCOPE
 
90.2 Scope.
(A) Covered. This Code covers the installation and removal of electrical 
conductors, equipment, and raceways; signaling and communications conductors, 
equipment, and raceways; and optical fiber cables and raceways for the 
following:
(1) Public and private premises, including buildings, structures, mobile homes, 
recreational vehicles, and floating buildings
(2) Yards, lots, parking lots, carnivals, and industrial substations
(3) Installations of conductors and equipment that connect to the supply of 
electricity
(4) Installations used by the electric utility, such as office buildings, 
warehouses, garages, machine shops, and recreational buildings, that are not an 
integral part of a generating plant, substation, or control center
(B) Not Covered. This Code does not cover the following:
(1) Installations in ships, watercraft other than floating buildings, railway 
rolling stock, aircraft, or automotive vehicles other than mobile homes and 
recreational vehicles
Informational Note: Although the scope of this Code indicates that the Code 
does not cover installations in ships, portions of this Code are incorporated 
by reference into Title 46, Code of
Federal Regulations, Parts 110–113.
(2) Installations underground in mines and self-propelled mobile surface mining 
machinery and its attendant electrical trailing cable
(3) Installations of railways for generation, transformation, transmission, 
energy storage, or distribution of power used exclusively for operation of 
rolling stock or installations used exclusively for signaling and 
communications purposes
(4) Installations of communications equipment under the exclusive control of 
communications utilities located outdoors or in building spaces used 
exclusively for such installations
(5) Installations under the exclusive control of an electric utility where such 
installations
a. Consist of service drops or service laterals, and associated metering, or
b. Are on property owned or leased by the electric utility for the purpose of 
communications, metering, generation, control, transformation, transmission, 
energy storage, or distribution of electric energy, or
c. Are located in legally established easements or rights-of-way, or
d. Are located by other written agreements either designated by or recognized 
by public service commissions, utility commissions, or other regulatory 
agencies having jurisdiction for such installations. These written agreements 
shall be limited to installations for the purpose of communications, metering, 
generation, control, transformation, transmission, energy storage, or 
distribution of electric energy where legally established easements or 
rights-of-way cannot be obtained. These installations shall be limited to 
federal lands, Native American reservations through the U.S. Department of the 
Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs, military bases, lands controlled by port 
authorities and state agencies and departments, and lands owned by railroads.
Informational Note to (4) and (5): Examples of utilities may include those 
entities that are typically designated or recognized by governmental law or 
regulation by public service/utility commissions and that install, operate, and 
maintain electric supply (such as generation, transmission, or distribution 
systems) or communications systems (such as telephone, CATV,
Internet, satellite, or data services). Utilities may be subject to compliance 
with codes and standards covering their regulated activities as adopted under 
governmental law or regulation.
Additional information can be found through consultation with the appropriate 
governmental bodies, such as state regulatory commissions, the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission.
(C) Special Permission. The authority having jurisdiction for enforcing this 
Code may grant exception for the installation of conductors and equipment that 
are not under the exclusive control of the electric utilities and are used to 
connect the electric utility supply system to the service conductors of the 
premises served, provided such installations are outside a building or 
structure, 

Re: [WISPA] Query to the group

[garrettshankle]

 IIRC the mac address randomizing code was[  half-baked and not random enough 
]( https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/10/mac_address_randomization/ ) to be 
anonymous. Android more or less gave up on the feature and it's hardly 
implemented at all. But either way it's not a brand issue it's across the 
board. Just turn off WiFi when not in use. 
 
 There's certainly legitimate uses for this technology but as with anything it 
can be abused as well. I'm more comfortable with a Muni. or public safety 
systems using it than a retail store. 
 
   For those of you that don't mind throwing wrenches in gears that shouldn't 
exist there's a project called [ Linger ]( https://jaspervanloenen.com/linger/ 
). Something like this could make statistical analysis of MAC addresses nearly 
impossible without some serious code to separate the noise. 
 
As for amusing SSID's my personal favorite seen in the wild: [Bring back my 
F*%!ing Leaf blower!] 

-Original Message-
From: "Tim Cailloux" 
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 5:23pm
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Query to the group



I thought Apple pretty well pissed on this concept of user tracking (at least 
with iPhone users) by psuedo-randomizing the MAC when scanning for WiFi 
networks?  I never paid enough attention to how well it worked, but I saw it as 
a pretty big anti-tracking feature.
(Not sure about Android.  I never had an Android phone I liked.  They exist, 
I'm sure, but I had bad luck.)

tim
 
--
Tim Cailloux
[ t...@southern-internet.com ]( mailto:t...@southern-internet.com )
(404) 406-9911
On Thu, May 11, 2017, at 17:19, Nick Bright wrote:

It's a widely used strategy in hotspot markets and large retail chains to track 
movement within facilities. Since the data is all anonymized, there's not any 
serious privacy issues; but the potential for abuse is there.
We do utilize a similar system in one of our wifi projects, to provide the city 
with analytic data on their down town area; it provides them with information 
that helps with chamber of commerce initiatives, public safety planning, and 
festival analytic data. When used responsibly, this anonymized data does not 
pose any privacy risk.
However, I do have say that the domain that original email was sent from does 
seem dubious - it goes to a link farm landing page. It makes me wonder "Who is 
really asking, and what is their real motivation?"
On 5/11/2017 2:11 PM, [ garrettshan...@vabb.com ]( 
mailto:garrettshan...@vabb.com ) wrote:
Jokes aside:
 
  That sounds too "gray area" for my liking personally. While it's all 
"technically" legal but still pushes some ethical issues with potential 
collection of MAC addresses from unwitting parties.
 
 Not that Lowe's and Target have any trouble with similar techniques.
 
  
 -Original Message-
 From: "Jan-OOLLC" [  ]( 
mailto:j.vank...@oregononline.net )
 Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 2:48pm
 To: [ wireless@wispa.org ]( mailto:wireless@wispa.org )
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Query to the group



Maybe he owns a donut store?

Jan V
On 05/11/2017 05:53 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:


"FBI Surveilance [sic] Van 7"?

 ;-)


-Mike Hammett[ Intelligent Computing Solutions ]( http://www.ics-il.com/ )[ 
 ]( https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL )[  ]( 
https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb )[  ]( 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions )[  ]( 
https://twitter.com/ICSIL )[ Midwest Internet Exchange ]( 
http://www.midwest-ix.com/ )[  ]( https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix )[  ]( 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange )[  ]( 
https://twitter.com/mdwestix )[ The Brothers WISP ]( 
http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/ ) [  ]( 
https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp )[  ]( 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg )


From: "Chris Stradtman" [  ]( 
mailto:cstradt...@greenpointcommunications.com )
To: "WISPA General List" [  ]( mailto:wireless@wispa.org )
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 1:04:41 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Query to the group



Hi Everyone, 
I'm looking to this group to feel out the feasibility of an idea.
I'm working with a project that is looking at doing a sort of "analytics".  One 
of the possible things this would involve would
be paying WISPs to collect data on a particular SSID (this SSID would be 
controlled by the project I'm working with, so this isn't going into
any gray privacy grounds).  The group would want to get the content of the 
beacons seen with this particular SSID(s).  It could either be done through
vendor equipment that would support it, or it could be done via a passive probe 
colocated with the WISP's gear.
I thought I would float this idea out to the group to see how it is received.
Thanks in advance,
Chris Stradtman

___
 Wireless mailing list
[ Wireless@wispa.org ]( 

Re: [WISPA] Query to the group

[garrettshankle]

Jokes aside:
 
  That sounds too "gray area" for my liking personally. While it's all 
"technically" legal but still pushes some ethical issues with potential 
collection of MAC addresses from unwitting parties.
 
 Not that Lowe's and Target have any trouble with similar techniques.
 
  
-Original Message-
From: "Jan-OOLLC" 
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 2:48pm
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Query to the group




Maybe he owns a donut store?

Jan V
On 05/11/2017 05:53 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

"FBI Surveilance [sic] Van 7"?

 ;-)


-Mike Hammett[ Intelligent Computing Solutions ]( http://www.ics-il.com/ )[ 
 ]( https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL )[  ]( 
https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb )[  ]( 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions )[  ]( 
https://twitter.com/ICSIL )[ Midwest Internet Exchange ]( 
http://www.midwest-ix.com/ )[  ]( https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix )[  ]( 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange )[  ]( 
https://twitter.com/mdwestix )[ The Brothers WISP ]( 
http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/ )[  ]( https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp 
)[  ]( https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg )
From: "Chris Stradtman" [  ]( 
mailto:cstradt...@greenpointcommunications.com )
To: "WISPA General List" [  ]( mailto:wireless@wispa.org )
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 1:04:41 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Query to the group


Hi Everyone,
I'm looking to this group to feel out the feasibility of an idea.
I'm working with a project that is looking at doing a sort of "analytics".  One 
of the possible things this would involve would
be paying WISPs to collect data on a particular SSID (this SSID would be 
controlled by the project I'm working with, so this isn't going into
any gray privacy grounds).  The group would want to get the content of the 
beacons seen with this particular SSID(s).  It could either be done through
vendor equipment that would support it, or it could be done via a passive probe 
colocated with the WISP's gear.
I thought I would float this idea out to the group to see how it is received.
Thanks in advance,
Chris Stradtman
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
[ Wireless@wispa.org ]( mailto:Wireless@wispa.org )
[ http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ]( 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless )


___Wireless mailing list[ 
Wireless@wispa.org ]( mailto:Wireless@wispa.org )[ 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ]( 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless )___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless