Re: [WISPA] MT interface randomly dumping clients.
I know you were just throwing numbers out there, but my MT CPE are $150 and just the antennas for the APs are $350. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 3:46 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT interface randomly dumping clients. Alvarion are at least $50 more per CPE.Canopy I WISH Alvarion was only $50 more per CPE. If it were, It would be all I used, even if it meant $7500 over 150 CPEs. But in my case, for 54mbps modulation CPEs Mikrotik- Ap $350, su $300, ($650 total) Alvarion- Ap $8000, su $1500 ( $9500 total). I can install 15 Mikrotik customers/buildings for every one Alvarion (15x the capacity). Bust most importantly Mikrotik enables funding buildouts via cash flow, which is invaluable. I really truly love Alvarion's support and product reliabilty, and still think its one of the higher quality products on the market. But I'll never be able to take advantage of it's offering, at those prices. I don't care how good it is, it just isn't worth 15x the cost. Its actually much much more than 15x the cost, once you start factoring that Mikrotiks have multiple ports, and can add AP relay cards/antenna at just $100 each. In my opinion Alvarion will never amount to anything other than a residential CPE, as long as they insist on the crippleware model, to pretend its affordable. And for the residential model, $50 a CPE does make a difference. The Alvarion was designed for the SuperCell model, which is a thing of the past, based on today's noise floor and end users' new speed requirements. The Lucaya, Ligo, Mikrotik type platforms' value propositions, just can't be ignored anymore. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT interface randomly dumping clients. Hi, I understand what you are saying... but I also understand that Canopy and Alvarion are at least $50 more per CPE. So to do 150 installs per month x $50 = $7,500 per month in savings it's pretty hard to just give up. Right now we are doing 30 customers per AP and it's working pretty well... even the gamers seem happy again. Mikrotik told me just today that it is next on their list after adding 802.11n support. I guess we'll see if they can actually make things better. Travis Microserv [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Travis, This was my main reason for being such a critical opponent to your request for Mikrotik support. We fought with Mikrotik over a year to get them to fix the issues and it never happened. We finally stopped about a year ago and went back to Canopy and Alvarion. (More Canopy lately with the 400 series) I can't tell you the number of supouts we sent or the number of tests we ran. We'd be up in the middle of the night, reconfiguring every CPE with different settings and then changing the APs based on their recommendations. Basically, we were doing their field testing for them and to no avail. Nothing they recommended fixed things. They finally said that we didn't have enough horsepower at the AP. So, we bought super powerful PCs for APs. Again, no help. Now they have their own super powerful hardware and it still hasn't fixed the issue. So, for the savings of money on equipment, we invested a lot in R D for both time and dollars. (I have tons of dead equipment sitting here that didn't work.) So, when adding up all the hours debugging for Mikrotik (with no results) and the extra equipment we had to buy to make things work, we bailed. Canopy and Alvarion are cheaper in the long run and we sleep more. We use Mikrotik for a lot of our routers and most of the fights we have fought there have been won. (BGP and OSPF) However, wireless never got better. (For PtMP) As far as support, Alvarion has been fantastic and thrown many resources our way. Although, we haven't needed them lately. Canopy has a large base with lots of third party options and community support. When problems with Canopy have come up, we do see them working on resolving them and software upgrades reflect that. I think Mikrotik's place for us has been reduced to mostly local repeaters. I have many (over 40) MT AP's with SR5 cards on the AP side and Compex WLM54SAG cards on the client side, with RB411's as well. All my clients are the same, and running MT, and they all do the same thing. :(br br Once again, MT is aware of the problem, but rather than fix it, they decide to work on 802.11n support. Who do they think is going to buy more product with 802.11n support when their current product doesn't even work?br br Travisbr Microservbr
Re: [WISPA] MT interface randomly dumping clients.
I believe it's an Orthogon radio. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 3:47 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT interface randomly dumping clients. What is the Canopy 400 series? How does that compare to the Advantage series? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 10:20 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT interface randomly dumping clients. Travis, This was my main reason for being such a critical opponent to your request for Mikrotik support. We fought with Mikrotik over a year to get them to fix the issues and it never happened. We finally stopped about a year ago and went back to Canopy and Alvarion. (More Canopy lately with the 400 series) I can't tell you the number of supouts we sent or the number of tests we ran. We'd be up in the middle of the night, reconfiguring every CPE with different settings and then changing the APs based on their recommendations. Basically, we were doing their field testing for them and to no avail. Nothing they recommended fixed things. They finally said that we didn't have enough horsepower at the AP. So, we bought super powerful PCs for APs. Again, no help. Now they have their own super powerful hardware and it still hasn't fixed the issue. So, for the savings of money on equipment, we invested a lot in R D for both time and dollars. (I have tons of dead equipment sitting here that didn't work.) So, when adding up all the hours debugging for Mikrotik (with no results) and the extra equipment we had to buy to make things work, we bailed. Canopy and Alvarion are cheaper in the long run and we sleep more. We use Mikrotik for a lot of our routers and most of the fights we have fought there have been won. (BGP and OSPF) However, wireless never got better. (For PtMP) As far as support, Alvarion has been fantastic and thrown many resources our way. Although, we haven't needed them lately. Canopy has a large base with lots of third party options and community support. When problems with Canopy have come up, we do see them working on resolving them and software upgrades reflect that. I think Mikrotik's place for us has been reduced to mostly local repeaters. I have many (over 40) MT AP's with SR5 cards on the AP side and Compex WLM54SAG cards on the client side, with RB411's as well. All my clients are the same, and running MT, and they all do the same thing. :(br br Once again, MT is aware of the problem, but rather than fix it, they decide to work on 802.11n support. Who do they think is going to buy more product with 802.11n support when their current product doesn't even work?br br Travisbr Microservbr br Kurt Fankhauser wrote: blockquote cite=mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] type=cite pre wrap=Butch, Nope, I am using the senao NMP-8602+ card on all these AP's. From what I can tell this problem shows its face when you have a mixed CPE's consisting of PRISM/Atheros chipsets. Can I solve this problem by removeing all the PRISM clients At this point I am willing to invest in replacing our old CB3/CPE-200 stuff anyways as it only makes up 10% of my network. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 a class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href=http://www.wavelinc.com;www.wavelinc.com/a -Original Message- From: a class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a [a class=moz-txt-link-freetext href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] On Behalf Of Butch Evans Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 3:16 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT interface randomly dumping clients. On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Kurt Fankhauser wrote: /pre blockquote type=cite pre wrap=Has anyone else seen this problem I am seeing. On my Mikrotik sites with Atheros AP's the interface will decide to completely dump all of the atheros clients and then they reconnect again within 2 seconds. You can tell this happens because the uptimes are so short. But the prism clients they never get dumped and their uptimes are accurate since they were last power cycled. Take a look at this screen shot you can see the problem clearly. This is happening on ALL of my towers that have Mikrotik AP's. /pre /blockquote pre wrap=! Let me guess...you are using the XR2 or XR5? This is a known issue that is especially bad with Tranzeo client radios and XR2 at the AP. As someone else mentioned, there is a lot of finger pointing going on relating to this issue. From what I can tell, this issue does not have a negative impact on Mikrotik CPE
[WISPA] Google Chrome
http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/ I'm not sure where, but it'll be released for download today. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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] Cisco Question
Can a Cisco router be configured to partition a PVC riding on a DS3 to an Ethernet interface without needing to be involved with it on the IP layer? The reason I ask is that another WISP once offered to provide me bandwidth on their DS3 directly from their upstream because I wanted to do BGP and they didn't do it. To avoid much of any impact (performance and configuration) on their router, I'd like to just do all the IP, BGP, etc. on my own router located there. I'm working with their provider now to see if I can purchase this from them. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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/
Re: [WISPA] Preventing backwards router problems
I use PPPoE and NATing CPE... they could do whatever they wanted and they won't disturb anyone else. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Andrew Niemantsverdriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 5:23 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Preventing backwards router problems How to I prevent SOHO routers from handing out bogus DHCP information when they are plugged in backwards? Also on a seperate note; long ago on this list there was a Linux distro that was basically a WISP management you put it on the gateway router and it only allowed MAC authorized clients to the internet everybody else was pointed to a captive portal. Does anybody remember this or could give me a link to it again? 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] Considering ARIN and buying our own IPs....IPv4? IPv6
If you can justify a... /22? then you should have your own IPs from ARIN. Other than that, you can't have them. All I can say is look at their site in the IPv4 numbers section (I think) and then locate the forms and fill them out. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: John McDowell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 12:51 PM To: Motorola Canopy User Group [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Considering ARIN and buying our own IPsIPv4? IPv6 Hey guys and gals, We are looking at our first redundant fiber connection from a second carrier and feeling the need to have our own IPs so that this will work out well. Anybody have advice on where to start with ARIN, besides just fishing around on the website, and what should we be looking at buying. We have a little over 350 subs right now and growing about 30 subs/month on average. We have a block of 2000 IPs from ATT. We want to plan for future growth, and for IPv6any advice? Thanks, -- John M. McDowell Boonlink Communications 307 Grand Ave NW Fort Payne, AL 35967 256.844.9932 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.boonlink.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing, spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the source, please contact the sender directly. 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] Considering ARIN and buying our own IPs....IPv4? IPv6
You need an IPv6 compatible upstream to put that to use. That said, getting an IPv6 allocation isn't a bad idea if you have the possibility of getting IPv6 transit, even if you don't. That way you're ready when the time comes. It'll be here before you know it. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: John McDowell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 12:56 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Considering ARIN and buying our own IPsIPv4? IPv6 Is anyone buying IPv6? Should we look at that as well? On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: If you can justify a... /22? then you should have your own IPs from ARIN. Other than that, you can't have them. All I can say is look at their site in the IPv4 numbers section (I think) and then locate the forms and fill them out. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: John McDowell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 12:51 PM To: Motorola Canopy User Group [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Considering ARIN and buying our own IPsIPv4? IPv6 Hey guys and gals, We are looking at our first redundant fiber connection from a second carrier and feeling the need to have our own IPs so that this will work out well. Anybody have advice on where to start with ARIN, besides just fishing around on the website, and what should we be looking at buying. We have a little over 350 subs right now and growing about 30 subs/month on average. We have a block of 2000 IPs from ATT. We want to plan for future growth, and for IPv6any advice? Thanks, -- John M. McDowell Boonlink Communications 307 Grand Ave NW Fort Payne, AL 35967 256.844.9932 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.boonlink.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing, spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the source, please contact the sender directly. 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/ -- John M. McDowell Boonlink Communications 307 Grand Ave NW Fort Payne, AL 35967 256.844.9932 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.boonlink.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing, spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the source, please contact the sender directly. 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] Considering ARIN and buying our own IPs....IPv4? IPv6
Upstream protection is the #1 reason to have your own IP block. Plenty of people have their own IP block, but don't do any of those things. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Charles Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 1:18 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: Motorola Canopy User Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WISPA] Considering ARIN and buying our own IPsIPv4? IPv6 John McDowell wrote: Hey guys and gals, We are looking at our first redundant fiber connection from a second carrier and feeling the need to have our own IPs so that this will work out well. Will you also be doing BGP? MPLS/OSPF traffic engineering all on your own? IE why do you need your own IP space? This is what ARIN will want to know. :) Anybody have advice on where to start with ARIN, besides just fishing around on the website, and what should we be looking at buying. Well ARIN has the forms here: http://www.arin.net/registration/templates/index.html Pretty straighforward submission process 1) Create POC and ORG records. 2) Fill out and submit template. 3) magic here 4) Profit We have a little over 350 subs right now and growing about 30 subs/month on average. We have a block of 2000 IPs from ATT. Well then it doesn't make sense to me to buy your own block at least not for some time. We want to plan for future growth, and for IPv6any advice? I am currently going through the IPv6 process with ARIN and hope to have it completed by end of September. -- Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059 http://charlesnw.blogspot.com CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project 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] Considering ARIN and buying our own IPs....IPv4? IPv6
You can request a /22 if you can demonstrate efficient use of a /23 if multihomed. Otherwise, you need to demonstrate a /20. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Faisal Imtiaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 1:49 PM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Considering ARIN and buying our own IPsIPv4? IPv6 . Unless you are multi-homed. Faisal Imtiaz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Wyble Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 2:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Considering ARIN and buying our own IPsIPv4? IPv6 Mike Hammett wrote: If you can justify a... /22? then you should have your own IPs from ARIN. Other than that, you can't have them. Correct. The minimum allocation has been going up. I used to control some /24 netblocks of portable space. Was cool. :) -- Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059 http://charlesnw.blogspot.com CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project 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] NTOP Question
Does anyone else have a problem with the AS report not seeming to show all your traffic? The sent column shows the AS I'm on sending 1.3 GB at 100%. The received column shows 63 megs as being 72%. Something doesn't seem right here. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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] Insurance
What do you guys have for insurance policies? I am working with my Hartford agent and I want to make sure I get what I need, but don't buy unnecessary policies. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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/
Re: [WISPA] frequency converters
Noise? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 9:49 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] frequency converters Whats the downside to using frequency converters? -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/ 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] 2.4 cars for MT AP
This is an honest question... Why does anyone use the SR2 or SR5 anymore when the XR2 and XR5 are out? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:23 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2.4 cars for MT AP SR2 Brian Rohrbacher wrote: What are some good cards to use in 2.4 MT APs? 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] All Those Attending WiNOG --- Patrick Leary inAttendance
I certainly thought so. :-p He probably knows more... sometimes I don't think those WiMAX guys know a darn thing! -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 1:41 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] All Those Attending WiNOG --- Patrick Leary inAttendance Who's Patrick Leary... is he the Wimax Inventor? jeje Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Ehman Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 2:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] All Those Attending WiNOG --- Patrick Leary in Attendance All attending the upcoming WiNOG in Chicago... I thought you would be interested to know that Patrick Leary will be speaking on the state of the WiMAX industry. Just a quick heads up because he has been quiet for a while now. -Jeff General Manager CTI (773) 667-4585 x2509 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] Ohio Carriers
Could you Ohio people tell me who you know of in the state that provides big bandwidth services or dark fiber... preferably outside the big downtowns? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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/
Re: [WISPA] NTOP Question
*bump* -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 8:37 AM To: WISPA List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] NTOP Question Does anyone else have a problem with the AS report not seeming to show all your traffic? The sent column shows the AS I'm on sending 1.3 GB at 100%. The received column shows 63 megs as being 72%. Something doesn't seem right here. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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/
[WISPA] CentOS iSCSI
Any recommendations for an iSCSI SAN device that will work with CentOS? Storage capacity isn't so much an issue as reliability, availability, and cost. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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/
Re: [WISPA] NTOP Question
I did, but their response was, think about it... and I will too. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Matt Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 3:01 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] NTOP Question You might want to try the NTOP mailing list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike Hammett wrote: *bump* -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 8:37 AM To: WISPA List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] NTOP Question Does anyone else have a problem with the AS report not seeming to show all your traffic? The sent column shows the AS I'm on sending 1.3 GB at 100%. The received column shows 63 megs as being 72%. Something doesn't seem right here. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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/ 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] Part 15 Frequency Chart
I am looking for an up to date chart with all of the unlicensed frequencies covered by part-15 rules. Some one told me that they can use the frequency range from 5.500 to 5.700 with unlicensed equipment. I am looking for the frequencies available in the 5.4 band. Thanks in advance, Mike 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] Thanks to Roc-Noc
I'd like to put out a big thanks to Tom Harker of Roc-Noc. I botched some Mikrotik upgrades today and needed some boards ASAP. I called Tom up at 2 in the afternoon. He had a dentist (or was it doctor, I dunno) appointment to go to, but would get my order together for me. By 3:00 I was on my way home with a bunch of new gear. I was only able to swap out two customers before it was too late, but I couldn't have done it if Tom didn't get me the gear that quickly. Thanks. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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/
Re: [WISPA] Who stocks PacW DP feeds
Tom, Thanks for the good word. On the web site, if it says call for availability it means there are none in stock and the lead time has not been entered for that product. So you're right to think that it's not going to ship the next day. But I'll pass your note on to the product manager for Pac and see about uping the levels for the 29DP. I thought it was normally a stock item. But sometimes we run out before the next shipment comes in. Again I'll check. Thanks. Mike B From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wed 9/24/2008 2:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Who stocks PacW DP feeds Well... I've always been a big fan of Hutton/Electrocom, and they do sell them, and have a great price on the feeds. Stocking of DP products is a different story. Unfortunteately, the majority of the time, when I need them , usually the last minute :-), the parts I need are usually check for availabilty. :-( That makes it hard to place an order at 8pm online, when I finally get time, and get a sense of whether the product will arrive on time for my need. So I was just looking for additional options. I was also wondering if Pac's model is now just for vendors to have Pac just Drop ship, and vendors generally not planning on stocking, which would also be OK. On an ongoing basis, I just don't want to have to wait for a product to be shipped to the distributor, and then from distributor to me, as that duplicates shipping costs and/or slows delivery so the distributor can coordinate lower cost bulk shipping methods to get it to them first. Its worse when I'm east coast, and distributor is west coast. I believe in distribution, when distributors are willing to stock the merchandise regularly. But in the past, very few vendors have been willing to stock DP products. I'm concerned on what availabilty will be in the future also. For small radios, and stuff, the arguement is always The WISP should buy larger quantities and stiock more inventory. But Parabolics are large antennas, and take up a lot of space, so generally don't like to stock a lot of them in our office environment. I'd rather overnight a feed, or buy the full dish more locally. Now that Pac is refusing to fill orders direct, for these little things, I hope distributors will pick up the slack, so we don't have to wait 2 weeks, everytime we want a DP antenna. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: 3-dB Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 7:05 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Who stocks PacW DP feeds Tom, Hutton carries them... I can check stock for you in a few hours if you like Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Who stocks PacW DP feeds So... Now that PacWireless's (Laird) online store is no more, and they are now more reliant on their Distribution partners Who stocks the 29db DP Feeds and dishes? Is it back to special order or Drop ship? Specifically referring to the HDDA5W-29-DP models. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc 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/ 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/ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail
Re: [WISPA] Who stocks PacW DP feeds
The NS2 is a long story and not suitable for the list. The EOC2610 I'm psyc'd about, but it's new and Engenius is getting their first volume shipment toward the end of October. So I suspect those will be in good supply afterwards. And thanks for using Hutton. How do we get your antennas ;) Mike From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Blair Davis Sent: Wed 9/24/2008 11:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Who stocks PacW DP feeds This is for Mike and it is off topic Mike, what is the deal with hutton getting the Ubiquity NS2 or the Senao EOC-2610 back in stock? Hutton has become my main wireless supplier for radios, cards, boards and other parts, excluding antennas. Thanks, Blair Mike Brownson wrote: Tom, Thanks for the good word. On the web site, if it says call for availability it means there are none in stock and the lead time has not been entered for that product. So you're right to think that it's not going to ship the next day. But I'll pass your note on to the product manager for Pac and see about uping the levels for the 29DP. I thought it was normally a stock item. But sometimes we run out before the next shipment comes in. Again I'll check. Thanks. Mike B From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wed 9/24/2008 2:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Who stocks PacW DP feeds Well... I've always been a big fan of Hutton/Electrocom, and they do sell them, and have a great price on the feeds. Stocking of DP products is a different story. Unfortunteately, the majority of the time, when I need them , usually the last minute :-), the parts I need are usually check for availabilty. :-( That makes it hard to place an order at 8pm online, when I finally get time, and get a sense of whether the product will arrive on time for my need. So I was just looking for additional options. I was also wondering if Pac's model is now just for vendors to have Pac just Drop ship, and vendors generally not planning on stocking, which would also be OK. On an ongoing basis, I just don't want to have to wait for a product to be shipped to the distributor, and then from distributor to me, as that duplicates shipping costs and/or slows delivery so the distributor can coordinate lower cost bulk shipping methods to get it to them first. Its worse when I'm east coast, and distributor is west coast. I believe in distribution, when distributors are willing to stock the merchandise regularly. But in the past, very few vendors have been willing to stock DP products. I'm concerned on what availabilty will be in the future also. For small radios, and stuff, the arguement is always The WISP should buy larger quantities and stiock more inventory. But Parabolics are large antennas, and take up a lot of space, so generally don't like to stock a lot of them in our office environment. I'd rather overnight a feed, or buy the full dish more locally. Now that Pac is refusing to fill orders direct, for these little things, I hope distributors will pick up the slack, so we don't have to wait 2 weeks, everytime we want a DP antenna. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: 3-dB Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 7:05 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Who stocks PacW DP feeds Tom, Hutton carries them... I can check stock for you in a few hours if you like Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Who stocks PacW DP feeds So... Now that PacWireless's (Laird) online store is no more, and they are now more reliant on their Distribution partners Who stocks the 29db DP Feeds and dishes? Is it back to special order or Drop ship? Specifically referring to the HDDA5W-29-DP models
Re: [WISPA] Dual Pol Antennas
A broadband dual pol dish will work from 5.2 to 5.9Ghz. You'll get the same gain on both polarities. But there's noting I know of less than $150. Usually dual pol dishes are used where you may need a higher quality antenna, so all the manufacturers I know of (RadioWaves, Maxrad, Pac Wireless) for dual pol are the higher grade varieties. Mike From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Blair Davis Sent: Thu 9/25/2008 8:41 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Dual Pol Antennas All this talk about Dual Pol feedhorns has got me curious I'm looking for a dual pol antenna... What I need is H-Pol on 5.3GHz band with 18db or more of gain and V-Pol on 5.8GHz with 15db or more of gain. A narrow beam width is a plus. A grid or a dish will be fine. I'd like to keep the price down as if it is over $150 or so, it really won't be cost effective. I can mount 2 antennas at this location if I have to. This is for a short link, about 2000ft, but it will be at the end of about 50ft of LMR-400. Thanks for any ideas Blair This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. winmail.dat 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] Who stocks PacW DP feeds
It's great to have the facts, really appreciate the emplaination. I passed this whole string on to the product manager so we can plan accordingly. Thanks Mike From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thu 9/25/2008 9:16 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Who stocks PacW DP feeds Mike, Thanks for the response. Again, Hutton/Electrocom has been a great distributor to work with. . I'll just add one more point about the Pac DP product. We forsee a huge future demand for the 2ft Dual Pol Wide Band 5.8G Parabolic. In the past, it was all we used, sense we had standardized our PTP deployments on Trango Atlas which are DP. But now, DP is not just a Trango thing. Both Mikrotik and StarOS, now support two radio cards for their Full Duplex modes, and/or Routing in one pol out the other. Some peoiple are also taking advantage of A/B ports on a single radio for diversity, although the FD is more common. These needs are becomming more and more necessary now that WISPS are growing and need their backhauls to pass more speed. And using a 40Mhz contiguous channel is very difficult to find free spectrum on, and usually not realistic. There are challenges, in noise rejection with a dual pol feed, but the advantages of having both links on one antenna are huge (space, colo costs, etc). Pac Wireless lowered the price of this DP product to a level where it a no brainer for a WISP to want to buy/stock EVERY dish as DP capable, even if they don't plan to use it. I personally think it was the #1 product of the year, and should earn Pac Wireless the title. We also see a need for the feeds, because WISPs have lots in the field already, and its logical they may upgrade their installed dishes at some point. Some of the older 2ft dishes, need a small nick cut out to allow the new HDD feeds to slide in, but a dremel can make it about 1 minute easilly. 2ft dishes are the most common jsut because they are so easy to work with, and Landlords never complain about the size. We found the Dishes are often needed even on shorter links, with OFDM products, because of noise avoidance. The Wide Band model HDDA5W is also important. Full Duplex often requires the spectrum to be 60-80mhz or so appart, to get adeqaute isolation between the Pols. So more often than not, even when using 20mhz channels, the links are a combination of two spectrum ranges. For example using channel 5.3G, 5.4G one way and 5.8G band the other. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Brownson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Who stocks PacW DP feeds Tom, Thanks for the good word. On the web site, if it says call for availability it means there are none in stock and the lead time has not been entered for that product. So you're right to think that it's not going to ship the next day. But I'll pass your note on to the product manager for Pac and see about uping the levels for the 29DP. I thought it was normally a stock item. But sometimes we run out before the next shipment comes in. Again I'll check. Thanks. Mike B From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wed 9/24/2008 2:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Who stocks PacW DP feeds Well... I've always been a big fan of Hutton/Electrocom, and they do sell them, and have a great price on the feeds. Stocking of DP products is a different story. Unfortunteately, the majority of the time, when I need them , usually the last minute :-), the parts I need are usually check for availabilty. :-( That makes it hard to place an order at 8pm online, when I finally get time, and get a sense of whether the product will arrive on time for my need. So I was just looking for additional options. I was also wondering if Pac's model is now just for vendors to have Pac just Drop ship, and vendors generally not planning on stocking, which would also be OK. On an ongoing basis, I just don't want to have to wait for a product to be shipped to the distributor, and then from distributor to me, as that duplicates shipping costs and/or slows delivery so the distributor can coordinate lower cost bulk shipping methods to get it to them first. Its worse when I'm east coast, and distributor is west coast. I believe in distribution, when distributors are willing to stock the merchandise regularly. But in the past, very few vendors have been willing to stock DP products. I'm concerned on what availabilty will be in the future also. For small radios, and stuff, the arguement is always The WISP should buy larger quantities and stiock more inventory. But Parabolics are large antennas, and take up a lot of space, so generally don't like to stock a lot of them in our office environment. I'd rather overnight a feed, or buy the full dish
[WISPA] Bad radio?
overall-tx-ccq: 59% authenticated-clients: 1 current-ack-timeout: 29 wds-link: no nstreme: no framing-mode: none routeros-version: 2.9.51 last-ip: 10.10.4.13 802.1x-port-enabled: yes compression: no current-tx-powers: 6Mbps:24(24),9Mbps:24(24),12Mbps:24(24),18Mbps:24(24),24Mbps:24(24),36Mbps:22(22),48Mbps:20(20),54Mbps:19(19) notify-external-fdb: no -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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/
Re: [WISPA] Bad radio?
I changed the freq a bit and didn't see any significant change. I climbed and swapped the pigtails with North and changed all the settings so they were fully swapped. Everyone on the south sector (which did have the questionable radio) is now happy. Now the North sector is showing the same symptoms on my test CPE. It's a good thing everyone except two are on East and West until I get this sorted out. Time to contact Streakwave about a bad radio... -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 1:05 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bad radio? It would be interesting to switch the freqs around and see what happens. It's probably a bad radio or cable though. -RickG On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does this seem like the radio isn't loud enough? I setup the test CPE on the TV tower at my house and pointed it at the tower. Radio Mobile reports the azimuth as 250 degrees, so well within the south sector's coverage and only at a distance of 230'. I am well below the vertical beamwidth of the sectors, explaining the relatively low signals, but ICS2 is horrible. 1 = North, 2 = South, 3 = West, 4 = East. It makes no sense that South is that much worse signal wise than the others, especially considering that it should be on the South sector anyway. 3 and 4 are SR5s while 1 and 2 are XR5s. I just replaced the towers with the XR5s. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Test Platform] /interface wireless scan wlan1 Flags: A - active, B - bss, P - privacy, R - routeros-network, N - nstreme ADDRESS SSID BAND FREQ SIG NF SNR RADIO-NAME AB R 00:15:6D:50:16:C6 ICS3 5ghz 5745 -72 -99 27 00156D5016C6 AB R 00:15:6D:50:17:09 ICS4 5ghz 5765 -68 -99 31 00156D501709 AB R 00:15:6D:64:0B:59 ICS1 5ghz 5785 -77 -99 22 00156D640B59 AB R 00:15:6D:64:0B:55 ICS2 5ghz 5825 -85 -99 14 00156D640B55 Here is a listing of the signals when connected: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Test Platform] /interface wireless monitor wlan1 status: connected-to-ess band: 5ghz frequency: 5785MHz tx-rate: 6Mbps rx-rate: 6Mbps ssid: ICS1 bssid: 00:15:6D:64:0B:59 radio-name: 00156D640B59 signal-strength: -77dBm tx-signal-strength: -74dBm noise-floor: -107dBm signal-to-noise: 30dB tx-ccq: 58% p-throughput: 5481 overall-tx-ccq: 58% authenticated-clients: 1 current-ack-timeout: 28 wds-link: no nstreme: no framing-mode: none routeros-version: 2.9.51 last-ip: 10.10.1.1 802.1x-port-enabled: yes compression: no current-tx-powers: 6Mbps:24(24),9Mbps:24(24),12Mbps:24(24),18Mbps:24(24),24Mbps:24(24),36Mbps:22(22),48Mbps:20(20),54Mbps:19(19) notify-external-fdb: no [EMAIL PROTECTED] Test Platform] /interface wireless monitor wlan1 status: connected-to-ess band: 5ghz frequency: 5825MHz tx-rate: 6Mbps rx-rate: 6Mbps ssid: ICS2 bssid: 00:15:6D:64:0B:55 radio-name: 00156D640B55 signal-strength: -86dBm tx-signal-strength: -76dBm noise-floor: -107dBm signal-to-noise: 21dB tx-ccq: 59% p-throughput: 5535 overall-tx-ccq: 58% authenticated-clients: 1 current-ack-timeout: 167 wds-link: no nstreme: no framing-mode: none routeros-version: 2.9.51 802.1x-port-enabled: yes compression: no current-tx-powers: 6Mbps:24(24),9Mbps:24(24),12Mbps:24(24),18Mbps:24(24),24Mbps:24(24),36Mbps:22(22),48Mbps:20(20),54Mbps:19(19) notify-external-fdb: no -- [Q quit|D dump|C-z pause] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Test Platform] /interface wireless monitor wlan1 status: connected-to-ess band: 5ghz frequency: 5745MHz tx-rate: 6Mbps rx-rate: 6Mbps ssid: ICS3 bssid: 00:15:6D:50:16:C6 radio-name: 00156D5016C6 signal-strength: -74dBm tx-signal-strength: -70dBm noise-floor: -106dBm signal-to-noise: 32dB tx-ccq: 59% p-throughput: 5518 overall-tx-ccq: 59% authenticated-clients: 1 current-ack-timeout: 28 wds-link: no nstreme: no framing-mode
Re: [WISPA] Bad radio?
Oddly enough, I have spares for the clients, but not for the towers... never had a bad tower radio before. This one could be classified as DOA since it hasn't even been up there a week before it started doing this. There was only 1 wireless client (is a repeater) total between North and South sectors... I just replaced the PacWireless sectors, SR5s, and u.fl pigtails with MTI sectors, XR5s, and MMCX pigtails. Just didn't have the coverage I was experiencing with the East and West sectors, which have significantly more people. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Travis Johnson Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 3:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bad radio? You don't keep spare radio cards in stock? That's probably something you should consider. Travis Microserv Mike Hammett wrote: I changed the freq a bit and didn't see any significant change. I climbed and swapped the pigtails with North and changed all the settings so they were fully swapped. Everyone on the south sector (which did have the questionable radio) is now happy. Now the North sector is showing the same symptoms on my test CPE. It's a good thing everyone except two are on East and West until I get this sorted out. Time to contact Streakwave about a bad radio... -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 1:05 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bad radio? It would be interesting to switch the freqs around and see what happens. It's probably a bad radio or cable though. -RickG On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does this seem like the radio isn't loud enough? I setup the test CPE on the TV tower at my house and pointed it at the tower. Radio Mobile reports the azimuth as 250 degrees, so well within the south sector's coverage and only at a distance of 230'. I am well below the vertical beamwidth of the sectors, explaining the relatively low signals, but ICS2 is horrible. 1 = North, 2 = South, 3 = West, 4 = East. It makes no sense that South is that much worse signal wise than the others, especially considering that it should be on the South sector anyway. 3 and 4 are SR5s while 1 and 2 are XR5s. I just replaced the towers with the XR5s. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Test Platform] /interface wireless scan wlan1 Flags: A - active, B - bss, P - privacy, R - routeros-network, N - nstreme ADDRESS SSID BAND FREQ SIG NF SNR RADIO-NAME AB R 00:15:6D:50:16:C6 ICS3 5ghz 5745 -72 -99 27 00156D5016C6 AB R 00:15:6D:50:17:09 ICS4 5ghz 5765 -68 -99 31 00156D501709 AB R 00:15:6D:64:0B:59 ICS1 5ghz 5785 -77 -99 22 00156D640B59 AB R 00:15:6D:64:0B:55 ICS2 5ghz 5825 -85 -99 14 00156D640B55 Here is a listing of the signals when connected: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Test Platform] /interface wireless monitor wlan1 status: connected-to-ess band: 5ghz frequency: 5785MHz tx-rate: 6Mbps rx-rate: 6Mbps ssid: ICS1 bssid: 00:15:6D:64:0B:59 radio-name: 00156D640B59 signal-strength: -77dBm tx-signal-strength: -74dBm noise-floor: -107dBm signal-to-noise: 30dB tx-ccq: 58% p-throughput: 5481 overall-tx-ccq: 58% authenticated-clients: 1 current-ack-timeout: 28 wds-link: no nstreme: no framing-mode: none routeros-version: 2.9.51 last-ip: 10.10.1.1 802.1x-port-enabled: yes compression: no current-tx-powers: 6Mbps:24(24),9Mbps:24(24),12Mbps:24(24),18Mbps:24(24),24Mbps:24(24),36Mbps:22(22),48Mbps:20(20),54Mbps:19(19) notify-external-fdb: no [EMAIL PROTECTED] Test Platform] /interface wireless monitor wlan1 status: connected-to-ess band: 5ghz frequency: 5825MHz tx-rate: 6Mbps rx-rate: 6Mbps ssid: ICS2 bssid: 00:15:6D:64:0B:55 radio-name: 00156D640B55 signal-strength: -86dBm tx-signal-strength: -76dBm noise-floor: -107dBm signal-to-noise: 21dB tx-ccq: 59% p-throughput: 5535 overall-tx-ccq: 58% authenticated-clients: 1 current-ack-timeout: 167 wds-link: no nstreme: no framing-mode: none routeros-version: 2.9.51 802.1x-port-enabled: yes compression: no current-tx-powers: 6Mbps:24(24),9Mbps:24(24),12Mbps:24(24),18Mbps:24(24),24Mbps:24(24
Re: [WISPA] Insurance
What does all of that cost you? Can someone just starting out suffice with just liability? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: jp [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 1:16 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Insurance Without good insurance, there are a lot of things you can't do and places you can't go. We're with Chubb right now and looking into Hartford. We have liability, EO, and an umbrella. On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 11:12:21AM -0500, Mac Dearman wrote: My opinion of insurance is not good! (Insurance is a racket and of Satan -hehehehe) When you buy insurance, buy what you can afford and all you can afford. It has been our experience that we really haven't needed any insurance and it has been a big waste of money, but I do know that for the other types of insurance we have in place - - it's never enough when you do need to file a claim. Don't read me wrong here - I am not saying that you don't need insurance or that I don't have insurance - - I am simply saying that (with hard work - not by luck) you will not ever need to file a claim and it will appear to you as it does me (a waste) until some unfortunate time when someone throws the monkey into the bicycle spokes and the ride ends abruptly :-) We have a $2M general liability policy w/o omissions Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 9:31 AM To: WISPA List Subject: [WISPA] Insurance What do you guys have for insurance policies? I am working with my Hartford agent and I want to make sure I get what I need, but don't buy unnecessary policies. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.19/1662 - Release Date: 9/9/2008 10:47 AM 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/ -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ| Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.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] Insurance
Did anything get determined? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 6:46 PM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WISPA] Insurance I am looking for a few WISPA members who would be interested in participating in this conference call with Marsh McLennan. Please RSVP to me offlist so we can coordinate a time to set this call up. Thanks, Rick Harnish -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of D. Ryan Spott Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 6:01 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Insurance WOOT! IMNSHO.. This is where WISPA needs to go! I would gladly pay more to join and keep my membership current with group buying power for insurance that covers what a WISP needs covered. ryan Ron Harden wrote: I have a high-level friend within Marsh McLennan, and eventually got to their director of assn. marketing; they should finally have a conference call with Rick Harnish and a few other members next week. I positioned it with Marsh as a large number of companies that could inevitably take advantage of a compelling offer from a large insurer. Let's see if Rick and the team can do any good in negotiating something of interest. Marsh is also going to put a proposal in front of FISPA as well. I don't know if that will help you (and others), but I'm sure that Rick will keep you posted on progress or an offer to members. Usually there is strength in numbers...Ron -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 2:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Insurance My agent sent me a proposal after I explained to him exactly what it is that we do. I called up the Hartford because the proposal didn't seem to reference anything specifically to being an Internet provider, just what seems to be a regular business policy with a Super Stretch for Technology and Software Service Providers endorsement. The guy I talked to on the phone said that they don't insure Internet Service Providers. ?!?! That's the company everyone here recommends. Is there some secret code to mention to get covered? I want my insurance to be there when I need it, but maybe there's a backdoor to get covered. If not, whom else will insure us? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 9:31 AM To: WISPA List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Insurance What do you guys have for insurance policies? I am working with my Hartford agent and I want to make sure I get what I need, but don't buy unnecessary policies. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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/ 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 incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1669 - Release Date: 9/12/2008 2:18 PM WISPA Wants You! Join today! http
[WISPA] Taxes
Are wireless Internet or VoIP services taxable? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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/
Re: [WISPA] Taxes
I would like to state that the State of Illinois has informed me that wireless Internet service is not taxable... well as a sale. Income tax is income tax, regardless of what it is. VoIP is subject to the Telecommunications Excise tax, which varies depending on municipality or county if unincorporated. The rate varies from state minimum of 7% to the state maximum of 13%, which the locality's own regulations being the difference. Now to get that setup in QuickBooks is another story... The USF states that unless you're going to make contributions to the USF of $10k or less per year, you don't even need to file. It varies each quarter, but that means roughly $77k in annual sales. I have not been made aware of any other taxes. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 9:49 AM To: WISPA List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Taxes Are wireless Internet or VoIP services taxable? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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] Ubiquity mini-pci's worth the cost?
The XRs have a newer chipset in addition to the increased power. They're also cheaper at some shops. I wouldn't be upset if I never saw another ufl again. The MMCX is a bit harder to get undone, but that's kinda the point. It won't just pop off. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Kurt Fankhauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 4:43 PM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Ubiquity mini-pci's worth the cost? I've never used any Ubiquity product ever and its mainly because of the $99 price tag for a single mini-pci but from what I've been reading in some of the Mikrotik forums these things are pretty reliable. Now I don't need the extra power that they put out, basically I am considering them because I've heard good things about them as far as reliability and never getting a new one DOA. I have a few questions for anyone here that has experience with these cards. 1. Do Ubiquity cards still create a lot of noise and consume power when you operate them with even with reduced TX power? 2. How do you like the MMCX connector? I am tired of fiddling with bad uf.l pigtails trying to find ones that work. 3. Will these cards get damaged from switching from Antenna A to B in the software when there is no antenna hooked to the other port? 4. How do these cards fair against lightning and static discharge compared to other cards? I never have a problem with static but I don't want any surprises. 5. I'm currently using R52H's and R52's but am considering switching to all Ubiquity for reliability. Anyone use both and whats your thoughts? The cards I'm considering are the SR2's and SR5's. I will be running the cards all with reduced TX power and only using the higher TX when I need to make up for some LMR900 coax runs. Regards, Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.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] Taxes
Well, true, as always, IANAL, YMMV, etc. I know I won't meet the threshold because sales could double and I still wouldn't hit that much. Perhaps a safe margin would be until you do... $4k/month in VoIP service, to not worry about filing. That is the site that I gleaned my information from. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Ron Harden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 5:35 PM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Taxes Mike: USF penalties are pretty stiff and the FCC has gotten aggressive on it, so be careful on that one. I don't agree with what you said -- we believe that by law you still have to file (you won't know until the end of the year whether your fees collected exceed the de minimis amount). Check the attached website, if you have not done so already. BTW -- Brighthouse in FL charges 8.9% for retail USF, which is also what we charge. The rate depends on your traffic mix, or whether you use the default rate. At that rate, if my math is correct, that indicates that $112K in annual revenue would be required to meet the $10K threshold, or about $9.3K per month, or about 400 lines of service. Ron -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 6:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Taxes I would like to state that the State of Illinois has informed me that wireless Internet service is not taxable... well as a sale. Income tax is income tax, regardless of what it is. VoIP is subject to the Telecommunications Excise tax, which varies depending on municipality or county if unincorporated. The rate varies from state minimum of 7% to the state maximum of 13%, which the locality's own regulations being the difference. Now to get that setup in QuickBooks is another story... The USF states that unless you're going to make contributions to the USF of $10k or less per year, you don't even need to file. It varies each quarter, but that means roughly $77k in annual sales. I have not been made aware of any other taxes. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 9:49 AM To: WISPA List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Taxes Are wireless Internet or VoIP services taxable? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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/ 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] Bad radio?
okay, now 3 days later the new south radio (originally north) is misbehaving in the same way (Tx/Rx signals are off by 10 where on the other sectors they're roughly balanced). The signals going back to the tower are 8 - 10 db stronger than the received signals. An R52 (or possibly R52H) is shooting back to the tower whereas an XR5 is shooting down to the CPE. If it were different radio specs, it'd be unbalanced the other way around. The SR5s that I have installed have been functioning just fine for years and are installed in the same fashion as the XR5s. Did UBNT make a bad batch of XR5s or am I doing something wrong? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 2:58 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bad radio? I changed the freq a bit and didn't see any significant change. I climbed and swapped the pigtails with North and changed all the settings so they were fully swapped. Everyone on the south sector (which did have the questionable radio) is now happy. Now the North sector is showing the same symptoms on my test CPE. It's a good thing everyone except two are on East and West until I get this sorted out. Time to contact Streakwave about a bad radio... -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 1:05 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bad radio? It would be interesting to switch the freqs around and see what happens. It's probably a bad radio or cable though. -RickG On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does this seem like the radio isn't loud enough? I setup the test CPE on the TV tower at my house and pointed it at the tower. Radio Mobile reports the azimuth as 250 degrees, so well within the south sector's coverage and only at a distance of 230'. I am well below the vertical beamwidth of the sectors, explaining the relatively low signals, but ICS2 is horrible. 1 = North, 2 = South, 3 = West, 4 = East. It makes no sense that South is that much worse signal wise than the others, especially considering that it should be on the South sector anyway. 3 and 4 are SR5s while 1 and 2 are XR5s. I just replaced the towers with the XR5s. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Test Platform] /interface wireless scan wlan1 Flags: A - active, B - bss, P - privacy, R - routeros-network, N - nstreme ADDRESS SSID BAND FREQ SIG NF SNR RADIO-NAME AB R 00:15:6D:50:16:C6 ICS3 5ghz 5745 -72 -99 27 00156D5016C6 AB R 00:15:6D:50:17:09 ICS4 5ghz 5765 -68 -99 31 00156D501709 AB R 00:15:6D:64:0B:59 ICS1 5ghz 5785 -77 -99 22 00156D640B59 AB R 00:15:6D:64:0B:55 ICS2 5ghz 5825 -85 -99 14 00156D640B55 Here is a listing of the signals when connected: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Test Platform] /interface wireless monitor wlan1 status: connected-to-ess band: 5ghz frequency: 5785MHz tx-rate: 6Mbps rx-rate: 6Mbps ssid: ICS1 bssid: 00:15:6D:64:0B:59 radio-name: 00156D640B59 signal-strength: -77dBm tx-signal-strength: -74dBm noise-floor: -107dBm signal-to-noise: 30dB tx-ccq: 58% p-throughput: 5481 overall-tx-ccq: 58% authenticated-clients: 1 current-ack-timeout: 28 wds-link: no nstreme: no framing-mode: none routeros-version: 2.9.51 last-ip: 10.10.1.1 802.1x-port-enabled: yes compression: no current-tx-powers: 6Mbps:24(24),9Mbps:24(24),12Mbps:24(24),18Mbps:24(24),24Mbps:24(24),36Mbps:22(22),48Mbps:20(20),54Mbps:19(19) notify-external-fdb: no [EMAIL PROTECTED] Test Platform] /interface wireless monitor wlan1 status: connected-to-ess band: 5ghz frequency: 5825MHz tx-rate: 6Mbps rx-rate: 6Mbps ssid: ICS2 bssid: 00:15:6D:64:0B:55 radio-name: 00156D640B55 signal-strength: -86dBm tx-signal-strength: -76dBm noise-floor: -107dBm signal-to-noise: 21dB tx-ccq: 59% p-throughput: 5535 overall-tx-ccq: 58% authenticated-clients: 1 current-ack-timeout: 167 wds-link: no nstreme: no framing-mode: none routeros-version: 2.9.51 802.1x-port-enabled: yes
Re: [WISPA] Bad radio?
Can anyone tell me what an XR5 puts out for signal if it has blown it's amp? I'm starting to believe something is causing the XR5s to blow their amps, reducing them to pre-amp power. What that is remains to be seen. I'm hoping it's the radio itself, pigtail, or the coax vs. the $350 MTI I waited 3 weeks for. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 8:48 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bad radio? okay, now 3 days later the new south radio (originally north) is misbehaving in the same way (Tx/Rx signals are off by 10 where on the other sectors they're roughly balanced). The signals going back to the tower are 8 - 10 db stronger than the received signals. An R52 (or possibly R52H) is shooting back to the tower whereas an XR5 is shooting down to the CPE. If it were different radio specs, it'd be unbalanced the other way around. The SR5s that I have installed have been functioning just fine for years and are installed in the same fashion as the XR5s. Did UBNT make a bad batch of XR5s or am I doing something wrong? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 2:58 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bad radio? I changed the freq a bit and didn't see any significant change. I climbed and swapped the pigtails with North and changed all the settings so they were fully swapped. Everyone on the south sector (which did have the questionable radio) is now happy. Now the North sector is showing the same symptoms on my test CPE. It's a good thing everyone except two are on East and West until I get this sorted out. Time to contact Streakwave about a bad radio... -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 1:05 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bad radio? It would be interesting to switch the freqs around and see what happens. It's probably a bad radio or cable though. -RickG On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does this seem like the radio isn't loud enough? I setup the test CPE on the TV tower at my house and pointed it at the tower. Radio Mobile reports the azimuth as 250 degrees, so well within the south sector's coverage and only at a distance of 230'. I am well below the vertical beamwidth of the sectors, explaining the relatively low signals, but ICS2 is horrible. 1 = North, 2 = South, 3 = West, 4 = East. It makes no sense that South is that much worse signal wise than the others, especially considering that it should be on the South sector anyway. 3 and 4 are SR5s while 1 and 2 are XR5s. I just replaced the towers with the XR5s. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Test Platform] /interface wireless scan wlan1 Flags: A - active, B - bss, P - privacy, R - routeros-network, N - nstreme ADDRESS SSID BAND FREQ SIG NF SNR RADIO-NAME AB R 00:15:6D:50:16:C6 ICS3 5ghz 5745 -72 -99 27 00156D5016C6 AB R 00:15:6D:50:17:09 ICS4 5ghz 5765 -68 -99 31 00156D501709 AB R 00:15:6D:64:0B:59 ICS1 5ghz 5785 -77 -99 22 00156D640B59 AB R 00:15:6D:64:0B:55 ICS2 5ghz 5825 -85 -99 14 00156D640B55 Here is a listing of the signals when connected: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Test Platform] /interface wireless monitor wlan1 status: connected-to-ess band: 5ghz frequency: 5785MHz tx-rate: 6Mbps rx-rate: 6Mbps ssid: ICS1 bssid: 00:15:6D:64:0B:59 radio-name: 00156D640B59 signal-strength: -77dBm tx-signal-strength: -74dBm noise-floor: -107dBm signal-to-noise: 30dB tx-ccq: 58% p-throughput: 5481 overall-tx-ccq: 58% authenticated-clients: 1 current-ack-timeout: 28 wds-link: no nstreme: no framing-mode: none routeros-version: 2.9.51 last-ip: 10.10.1.1 802.1x-port-enabled: yes compression: no current-tx-powers: 6Mbps:24(24),9Mbps:24(24),12Mbps:24(24),18Mbps:24(24),24Mbps:24(24),36Mbps:22(22),48Mbps:20(20),54Mbps:19(19) notify-external-fdb: no [EMAIL PROTECTED] Test Platform] /interface wireless monitor wlan1 status: connected-to-ess band: 5ghz
Re: [WISPA] Bad radio?
*shrugs* It's a Mikrotik 4 slot mPCI - PCI adapter modified (by Mikrotik) to power higher powered cards. It previously contained all SR5s. I'm looking to convert to 4x RB411AHs instead of 1x PC. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 10:39 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bad radio? Not sure if this was asked, but is your board powering these cards properly? Mark Nash UnwiredWest 78 Centennial Loop Suite E Eugene, OR 97401 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax http://www.unwiredwest.com - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bad radio? Can anyone tell me what an XR5 puts out for signal if it has blown it's amp? I'm starting to believe something is causing the XR5s to blow their amps, reducing them to pre-amp power. What that is remains to be seen. I'm hoping it's the radio itself, pigtail, or the coax vs. the $350 MTI I waited 3 weeks for. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 8:48 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bad radio? okay, now 3 days later the new south radio (originally north) is misbehaving in the same way (Tx/Rx signals are off by 10 where on the other sectors they're roughly balanced). The signals going back to the tower are 8 - 10 db stronger than the received signals. An R52 (or possibly R52H) is shooting back to the tower whereas an XR5 is shooting down to the CPE. If it were different radio specs, it'd be unbalanced the other way around. The SR5s that I have installed have been functioning just fine for years and are installed in the same fashion as the XR5s. Did UBNT make a bad batch of XR5s or am I doing something wrong? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 2:58 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bad radio? I changed the freq a bit and didn't see any significant change. I climbed and swapped the pigtails with North and changed all the settings so they were fully swapped. Everyone on the south sector (which did have the questionable radio) is now happy. Now the North sector is showing the same symptoms on my test CPE. It's a good thing everyone except two are on East and West until I get this sorted out. Time to contact Streakwave about a bad radio... -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 1:05 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bad radio? It would be interesting to switch the freqs around and see what happens. It's probably a bad radio or cable though. -RickG On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does this seem like the radio isn't loud enough? I setup the test CPE on the TV tower at my house and pointed it at the tower. Radio Mobile reports the azimuth as 250 degrees, so well within the south sector's coverage and only at a distance of 230'. I am well below the vertical beamwidth of the sectors, explaining the relatively low signals, but ICS2 is horrible. 1 = North, 2 = South, 3 = West, 4 = East. It makes no sense that South is that much worse signal wise than the others, especially considering that it should be on the South sector anyway. 3 and 4 are SR5s while 1 and 2 are XR5s. I just replaced the towers with the XR5s. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Test Platform] /interface wireless scan wlan1 Flags: A - active, B - bss, P - privacy, R - routeros-network, N - nstreme ADDRESS SSID BAND FREQ SIG NF SNR RADIO-NAME AB R 00:15:6D:50:16:C6 ICS3 5ghz 5745 -72 -99 27 00156D5016C6 AB R 00:15:6D:50:17:09 ICS4 5ghz 5765 -68 -99 31 00156D501709 AB R 00:15:6D:64:0B:59 ICS1 5ghz 5785 -77 -99 22 00156D640B59 AB R 00:15:6D:64:0B:55 ICS2 5ghz 5825 -85 -99 14 00156D640B55 Here is a listing of the signals when connected: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Test Platform] /interface wireless monitor wlan1 status: connected-to-ess band
Re: [WISPA] Bad radio?
The TX is currently set to default in MT 2.9.51, whatever dB that turns out to be. I was going to tune it once the system stabilized. Maybe 20' of LMR-400. No lightning arrestors. The other sectors on the tower sat there for years without them and no damage, so when I upgraded and had the wrong pigtails to use the existing arrestors, I removed them. No amps, just the XR5s... I'd never use an amp. Roughly 16 dBi gain for all 4 sectors pointed North, South, East, and West. They all have roughly 5 degrees of downtilt. No PoE, the MT system is a PC with a 4 slot mPCI adapter. The only other cat 5 is going to an Orthogon Gemini (and it's PoE). This is pointed east and is on the opposite side of the grain leg from the troubled sector. Nothing else within 1 mile that uses upper 5 GHz. Well, there's CPE in unknown bands, but they didn't affect the previous radio\antenna combo. All customers use 19 or 24 dBi RooTennas, depending on distance from tower. I believe everyone is between -60 and -75. For some reason, some of these sectors are much louder than they were previously, though I don't have any documentation as to who saw what before. What do band-pass filters cost and where can I get them? Maybe I ought to invest in some of those. North, ICS1 = 5785 South, ICS2 = 5805 East, ICS4 = 5765 West, ICS3 = 5745 North = 1 === Flags: A - active, B - bss, P - privacy, R - routeros-network, N - nstreme ADDRESS SSID BAND FREQ SIG RADIO-NAME AB R 00:15:6D:50:16:C6 ICS3 5ghz 5745 -49 00156D5016C6 AB R 00:15:6D:50:17:09 ICS4 5ghz 5765 -37 00156D501709 AB R 00:15:6D:64:0B:59 ICS2 5ghz 5805 -43 00156D640B59 AB RN 00:0C:42:05:51:B7 Walter 5ghz 5260 -71 000C420551B7 South = 2 === Flags: A - active, B - bss, P - privacy, R - routeros-network, N - nstreme ADDRESS SSID BAND FREQ SIG RADIO-NAME AB R 00:15:6D:50:16:C6 ICS3 5ghz 5745 -51 00156D5016C6 AB R 00:15:6D:50:17:09 ICS4 5ghz 5765 -38 00156D501709 AB R 00:15:6D:64:0B:55 ICS1 5ghz 5785 -29 00156D640B55 East = 4 === Will run a scan during non-peak times. West = 3 === Will run a scan during non-peak times. Mikrotik reports a debatable noise floor reading, which is supposed to represent all non-802.11 systems. It isn't worse than -99 on any sector. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 9:59 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bad radio? First, read this: http://www.enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/netsysm/article.php/3765946 It might sound strange but sometimes RSSI can be effected by interference. It's important to run the calcs on what you're running. I have a nice spread sheet if you need a calculator. I really really miss the YDI online one. Nice and simple. Not full of junk no one uses. Oh well. To offer more realistic help here we need to know a lot more info What TX power are the radios set for? How much coax? Lightning arrestors? Amps (db)? What antenna gain? If sectors, what coverage and how are they pointing? (example, customers are 500' lower than the antenna and 1 to 20 miles away. Antenna is downtilted 25*) How long are the cat 5 runs? Any other radio systems on that tower or near by (less than one mile)? If you do an ap scan from each AP (usually have to put them in client mode but some will do so via ap mode) how many other systems do you see and what levels do you see them at? Do you have the ability to run a general spectrum scan? If so, what does it show? (NOTE: If you run this test make sure to run a second test with all of the other AP's that you control turned off.) I turn the power wayy down on almost all of my AP's these days. Most are only putting out 15 to 20 dB. I use slightly larger customer antennas to make up for the AP TX power losses. This has REALLY helped the speeds and stability on my overall system. Believe it or not, I have customers at nearly 15 miles pulling 2 to 3 megs both ways via an 8 dB omni fed by a radio turned down to 17dB. I now have several customers over 15 miles that pull from 13dB sectors fed by 17dB ap's. Speeds are HIGHER than they were when I was running amped systems at 4 watts. Happy hunting! marlon - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 6:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bad radio? okay, now 3 days later the new south radio (originally north) is misbehaving in the same way (Tx/Rx signals are off by 10 where on the other sectors they're roughly balanced). The signals going back to the tower are 8 - 10 db stronger than the received signals. An R52 (or possibly R52H) is shooting back
Re: [WISPA] Bad radio?
So are you telling me that I can only run 2 or 3 radios in upper 5 GHz without stepping on myself? I was pretty sure nothing was greater than -60 or so before I made these tower changes, but silly me, I didn't bother to document what I saw. Some of those signals don't make any sense, either. Between North and East and North and South are gigantic chunks of metal to where I doubt you could even physically see a foot or two to the side of either sector. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 11:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bad radio? This really looks like you are causing yourself all kinds of interference. Using the channels you listed: North, ICS1 = 5785 South, ICS2 = 5805 East, ICS4 = 5765 West, ICS3 = 5745 I'm sure they are stepping on each other. The signal doesn't just drop completely off on the edges. I assume 20mhz wide channels (because you didn't specify), meaning North and South edges are right next to each other, but in the same case, on the same card, I'm sure you are stepping on yourself. Same with the East and West ones. So, on the North you are actually using 5775 to 5795. While on the South you are 5795 to 5815. I can tell you right now that even having 10mhz between channel edges isn't going to be enough... you will need 20-40mhz of spacing between the edges of the band to keep from interfering with yourself. Travis Microserv Mike Hammett wrote: The TX is currently set to default in MT 2.9.51, whatever dB that turns out to be. I was going to tune it once the system stabilized. Maybe 20' of LMR-400. No lightning arrestors. The other sectors on the tower sat there for years without them and no damage, so when I upgraded and had the wrong pigtails to use the existing arrestors, I removed them. No amps, just the XR5s... I'd never use an amp. Roughly 16 dBi gain for all 4 sectors pointed North, South, East, and West. They all have roughly 5 degrees of downtilt. No PoE, the MT system is a PC with a 4 slot mPCI adapter. The only other cat 5 is going to an Orthogon Gemini (and it's PoE). This is pointed east and is on the opposite side of the grain leg from the troubled sector. Nothing else within 1 mile that uses upper 5 GHz. Well, there's CPE in unknown bands, but they didn't affect the previous radio\antenna combo. All customers use 19 or 24 dBi RooTennas, depending on distance from tower. I believe everyone is between -60 and -75. For some reason, some of these sectors are much louder than they were previously, though I don't have any documentation as to who saw what before. What do band-pass filters cost and where can I get them? Maybe I ought to invest in some of those. North, ICS1 = 5785 South, ICS2 = 5805 East, ICS4 = 5765 West, ICS3 = 5745 North = 1 === Flags: A - active, B - bss, P - privacy, R - routeros-network, N - nstreme ADDRESS SSID BAND FREQ SIG RADIO-NAME AB R 00:15:6D:50:16:C6 ICS3 5ghz 5745 -49 00156D5016C6 AB R 00:15:6D:50:17:09 ICS4 5ghz 5765 -37 00156D501709 AB R 00:15:6D:64:0B:59 ICS2 5ghz 5805 -43 00156D640B59 AB RN 00:0C:42:05:51:B7 Walter 5ghz 5260 -71 000C420551B7 South = 2 === Flags: A - active, B - bss, P - privacy, R - routeros-network, N - nstreme ADDRESS SSID BAND FREQ SIG RADIO-NAME AB R 00:15:6D:50:16:C6 ICS3 5ghz 5745 -51 00156D5016C6 AB R 00:15:6D:50:17:09 ICS4 5ghz 5765 -38 00156D501709 AB R 00:15:6D:64:0B:55 ICS1 5ghz 5785 -29 00156D640B55 East = 4 === Will run a scan during non-peak times. West = 3 === Will run a scan during non-peak times. Mikrotik reports a debatable noise floor reading, which is supposed to represent all non-802.11 systems. It isn't worse than -99 on any sector. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 9:59 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bad radio? First, read this: http://www.enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/netsysm/article.php/3765946 It might sound strange but sometimes RSSI can be effected by interference. It's important to run the calcs on what you're running. I have a nice spread sheet if you need a calculator. I really really miss the YDI online one. Nice and simple. Not full of junk no one uses. Oh well. To offer more realistic help here we need to know a lot more info What TX power are the radios set for? How much coax? Lightning arrestors? Amps (db)? What antenna gain? If sectors, what coverage and how are they pointing? (example, customers are 500' lower than the antenna and 1 to 20 miles away. Antenna is downtilted 25*) How long are the cat 5 runs? Any other radio systems on that tower or near by (less than one
Re: [WISPA] Bad radio?
I have a genuine interest to know what's going on here. Why wasn't this an issue before and what effect does this have on a radio no longer transmitting as powerfully? I could see it going deaf, but it hears just fine. I'm thinking about ditching the PC and mPCI - PCI adapter and going with 4x RB411AHs instead, providing some increased radio separation. Depending on how I do it, there may be sheet metal between each RB411AH as well. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 12:25 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bad radio? The noise is coming from the actual wireless cards being so close to each other. Not all of the signal is going out the cable... and with cards stacked within inches from each other, more noise bleeds over. Travis Microserv Mike Hammett wrote: So are you telling me that I can only run 2 or 3 radios in upper 5 GHz without stepping on myself? I was pretty sure nothing was greater than -60 or so before I made these tower changes, but silly me, I didn't bother to document what I saw. Some of those signals don't make any sense, either. Between North and East and North and South are gigantic chunks of metal to where I doubt you could even physically see a foot or two to the side of either sector. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 11:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bad radio? This really looks like you are causing yourself all kinds of interference. Using the channels you listed: North, ICS1 = 5785 South, ICS2 = 5805 East, ICS4 = 5765 West, ICS3 = 5745 I'm sure they are stepping on each other. The signal doesn't just drop completely off on the edges. I assume 20mhz wide channels (because you didn't specify), meaning North and South edges are right next to each other, but in the same case, on the same card, I'm sure you are stepping on yourself. Same with the East and West ones. So, on the North you are actually using 5775 to 5795. While on the South you are 5795 to 5815. I can tell you right now that even having 10mhz between channel edges isn't going to be enough... you will need 20-40mhz of spacing between the edges of the band to keep from interfering with yourself. Travis Microserv Mike Hammett wrote: The TX is currently set to default in MT 2.9.51, whatever dB that turns out to be. I was going to tune it once the system stabilized. Maybe 20' of LMR-400. No lightning arrestors. The other sectors on the tower sat there for years without them and no damage, so when I upgraded and had the wrong pigtails to use the existing arrestors, I removed them. No amps, just the XR5s... I'd never use an amp. Roughly 16 dBi gain for all 4 sectors pointed North, South, East, and West. They all have roughly 5 degrees of downtilt. No PoE, the MT system is a PC with a 4 slot mPCI adapter. The only other cat 5 is going to an Orthogon Gemini (and it's PoE). This is pointed east and is on the opposite side of the grain leg from the troubled sector. Nothing else within 1 mile that uses upper 5 GHz. Well, there's CPE in unknown bands, but they didn't affect the previous radio\antenna combo. All customers use 19 or 24 dBi RooTennas, depending on distance from tower. I believe everyone is between -60 and -75. For some reason, some of these sectors are much louder than they were previously, though I don't have any documentation as to who saw what before. What do band-pass filters cost and where can I get them? Maybe I ought to invest in some of those. North, ICS1 = 5785 South, ICS2 = 5805 East, ICS4 = 5765 West, ICS3 = 5745 North = 1 === Flags: A - active, B - bss, P - privacy, R - routeros-network, N - nstreme ADDRESS SSID BAND FREQ SIG RADIO-NAME AB R 00:15:6D:50:16:C6 ICS3 5ghz 5745 -49 00156D5016C6 AB R 00:15:6D:50:17:09 ICS4 5ghz 5765 -37 00156D501709 AB R 00:15:6D:64:0B:59 ICS2 5ghz 5805 -43 00156D640B59 AB RN 00:0C:42:05:51:B7 Walter 5ghz 5260 -71 000C420551B7 South = 2 === Flags: A - active, B - bss, P - privacy, R - routeros-network, N - nstreme ADDRESS SSID BAND FREQ SIG RADIO-NAME AB R 00:15:6D:50:16:C6 ICS3 5ghz 5745 -51 00156D5016C6 AB R 00:15:6D:50:17:09 ICS4 5ghz 5765 -38 00156D501709 AB R 00:15:6D:64:0B:55 ICS1 5ghz 5785 -29 00156D640B55 East = 4 === Will run a scan during non-peak times. West = 3 === Will run a scan during non-peak times. Mikrotik reports a debatable noise floor reading, which is supposed to represent all non-802.11 systems. It isn't worse than -99 on any sector. -- Mike Hammett
Re: [WISPA] Introducing new WISPA Vendor Member - Network Innovations
Welcome to the WISPA, Jon. I just can't escape you guys, can I? :-p -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 10:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Introducing new WISPA Vendor Member - Network Innovations I would like to introduce Jonathan Erlich of Network Innovations, Inc., our latest new WISPA Vendor member. Network Innovations is a premiere wholesale provider of Internet Bandwidth, Private Lines, and MPLS. Network Innovations has aggregate agreements with Tier 1 carriers such as ATT, MCI, Level 3, Quest, Verizon, XO, Global Crossing and others. Jonathan has over 15 years experience as a computer re-seller in network design, storage area network and network attached storage. He joined Network Innovations to take on the role as an Account Director. Please visit the Network Innovations website at http://www.nitelecom.com for more information about their products and services. 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] Radwin 2000
Total of 20MHz from what I understand -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Greene Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 8:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Radwin 2000 Hi guys, Thanks for your feedback. I understand the Radwin 2000 is in beta right now, and that the pricing is going to be $5k per link when it hits the market. I'm still trying to find out whether the 50Mbps is w/ 20MHz or 40MHz channels. The company (which is Israeli) apparently is very strong in the non-US market and is looking to increase market share in the US. Thanks, Adam - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 2:05 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Radwin 2000 I haven't looked at their new product yet. But their older ptp product was very nice. I had used one once, although I ended up favoring the Trango Atlas, for most of my PTP installs. One of the reasons was that RADWINs speed was overstated, as many CDMA/CA chipset type products did that emulated TDD and FDX. Trango's TDD HDX was more felxible, and gave a more consistent better delivery of more real throughput per Mhz. (But it is limited to 45mbps HDX) Its interesting to see a 50mbps FDX product, if it really delivers that, spectral efficiently. What was the price point on that? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Adam Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 3:32 PM Subject: [WISPA] Radwin 2000 Hi, Has anyone heard of or used products by Radwin (www.radwin.com)? I understand they are releasing the Radwin 2000 series of 5.x GHz point-to-point links in the US in November. The price is very attractive. My main concern is performance reliability. We can test the performance within a short period of time, but not the reliability (would need to have the link up for a while to do that). We are considering these for a critical 2 mi. link. Thanks, Adam 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 incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1711 - Release Date: 10/6/2008 5:37 PM 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] Rackmount PoE
Does anyone have any recommendations for rackmounted PoE injectors? I was looking at a Panduit PoE injecting 24 port patch panel, but I imagine that'll cost an arm and a leg. I'm not sure how many I'll need, but I'm guessing around 30. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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/
Re: [WISPA] Rackmount PoE
I'm looking for something like this: http://www.panduit.com/stellent/images/panduit/standard/N%23DPoE24U1X-lb.jpg It was hard to see in that picture what was going on. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 6:30 PM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rackmount PoE Something like the picture attached? Thanks, Rick Harnish -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rogelio Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 7:05 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rackmount PoE Mike Hammett wrote: Does anyone have any recommendations for rackmounted PoE injectors? I was looking at a Panduit PoE injecting 24 port patch panel, but I imagine that'll cost an arm and a leg. I'm not sure how many I'll need, but I'm guessing around 30. Good question. I'm looking for something along those lines, as well. Up to this point, I've just used loose ones that I've nailed to the wall. Tacky, I know, but pretty much all I had to work with. (Mike, please let me know if you find anything that works for 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/
Re: [WISPA] gotta love USF!!!!
It is not supported by a government tax, but it is supported by a varying fee that a private company charges and the government requires you to pay. That's a tax wearing a mask. I support the need for USF, but the situation Marlon describes is crap. I can't get a landline here for $30 (70 miles from Chicago), but BFE can get landline and high speed Internet for $30 because of USF funds. USF should absorb some of the cost, but not to a point where USF services are less expensive than non-USF services. People in rural areas should pay somewhere between urban price and true cost, closer to urban. I would fully expect to pay $50 for a landline in a remote area while the true cost was... $1000 or $1. I have a MAJOR beef with the fact that I am required to pay into USF as a VoIP provider (though I don't do enough revenue to be required to file), but I am not allowed to be funded by USF. That is crap. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Chuck McCown [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:28 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] gotta love USF The USF is solvent, it not supported by tax dollars and does its job in getting phone service to every last barn and sagebrush that needs it. I would say it works better than the mortgage banking industry, social security or the national budget... - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 8:50 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] gotta love USF In all honesty, it's turned into quite a scam hasn't it. About is rampant from what I see. marlon - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 9:15 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] gotta love USF It is a cost recovery mechanism. I got audited by USAC this year to prove that the USF we receive is to cover the costs of providing the service. But think how expensive it is to run a hundred miles of fiber and put in a class 5 switch to serve 30 or 50 customers. You are right, I do love USF!!! - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 8:29 PM Subject: [WISPA] gotta love USF Just had a dilup customer quit. She went to DSL. $14.95 for internet and $14.95 for phone line. $29.90 for both! This was NOT an introductory rate. Good for life. She called to double check that after we warned her. Depending on who you listen to Century Tel gets $60 to $109 per month in subsidies out here. Per phone line. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't USF supposed to be a cost recovery mechanism? If the telco can drop their drawers that far down it seems to me that USF has been kicking in a bit too much of late. The older I get the more I hate my government and what it's doing to us! 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/ 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] gotta love USF!!!!
I thought Lyons sounded familiar... a coax route went from a facility near here to that facility. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: jp [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:19 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] gotta love USF I don't know about local stuff, but what I read about the history of ATT Longlines is that it must have been heavily government funded for federal defense and communications interests. Here is one example http://long-lines.net/places-routes/Lyons_NE/index.html They must have been either richer than the feds or federally funded to be able to build their infrastructure to the high standards needed to survive nuclear war. If you think someone is milking the government a little with a small community homeland security radio project, ATT had the whole milk processing plant metaphorically speaking. If the feds didn't build it, surely they rebuilt it to their standards with fat contracts to a monopoly provider. I have personally built and tested many analog phones for the federal government that sold for $1000 each in some cases; the company I was working for that had this contract had bid against ATT to get it. If the phones cost that much, I can't imagine that the services cost. Now RUS is financing Crossroads, a mostly redundant and unnecesary cellular network meant to benefit the ILECs who are not verizon. On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 10:11:27AM -0600, Chuck McCown wrote: The phone system was not developed by tax dollars. It was developed by guys like Art Brothers who hand built miles of open wire pole lines by himself. He later got loans from the REA (later to become the RUS) to improve his system. A program that serves as a profit center for the us government. You all should be thanking the RUS for making your income tax bill lower through money that flows from that program to the general fund. Do you really think Ma Bell was not profitable and had to be supported by taxes? When I think of blue chip stock, I think of the old ATT. How was the phone system developed by tax dollars? 120 years ago there was a boom in telecommunications with in some cases multiple LECs in the same city. Government regulation stepped in to create the monopoly and to tax it. But they did not build the bell system or any of the independents. - Original Message - From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:04 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] gotta love USF Chuck, so your definition of a tax is if you are forced to pay? Keeping in mind that the phone system was developed as a public utility by tax dollars that we all were forced to pay. IMO, that means that we should be able use it without being encumbered by fees other than what are necessary to support the system is was designed for. Am I really off base here? -RickG On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Chuck McCown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Use magic jack, ham radio, smoke signals, skype or the post office. Your telephone bill comes from a commercial enterprise. You do not have to participate. Therefore you are not forced to pay into our charity program. That is not a tax. - Original Message - From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] gotta love USF Tacking a fee on my telephone bill is a form of taxation. -RickG On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Chuck McCown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The current USF audits by USAC are turning up collusion between school districts (the principle is the brother of the local ISP) and provider of goods and services of E-rate funded projects. The audits have not shown any telephone company to be misusing this money. And I want to repeat, this is not taxpayer money. Most of this money is from a charge tacked onto the bills of the RBOC customers. It is revenue pooling and re-distribution. So, lets back off the misuse by telephone company tone of this discussion. If we want to point fingers, you will find the fingers are pointing at the local networking and ISP companies. That is the major source of the misuse. The second is cell phone companies claiming to be providing pots service to rural customers via tellular units. Western Wireless built a business plan around tapping the USF for all it could get. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman
Re: [WISPA] gotta love USF!!!!
I've been through the Lee, IL site now owned by Terry Michaels. Nice place. I haven't been there in a few years, though. He's got quite a write up on that one now. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Blake Bowers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 12:12 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] gotta love USF Lyons was one of the power feed stations. Very cool place. It is now in private ownership - a telephone collector owns it. 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: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:57 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] gotta love USF I thought Lyons sounded familiar... a coax route went from a facility near here to that facility. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: jp [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:19 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] gotta love USF I don't know about local stuff, but what I read about the history of ATT Longlines is that it must have been heavily government funded for federal defense and communications interests. Here is one example http://long-lines.net/places-routes/Lyons_NE/index.html They must have been either richer than the feds or federally funded to be able to build their infrastructure to the high standards needed to survive nuclear war. If you think someone is milking the government a little with a small community homeland security radio project, ATT had the whole milk processing plant metaphorically speaking. If the feds didn't build it, surely they rebuilt it to their standards with fat contracts to a monopoly provider. I have personally built and tested many analog phones for the federal government that sold for $1000 each in some cases; the company I was working for that had this contract had bid against ATT to get it. If the phones cost that much, I can't imagine that the services cost. Now RUS is financing Crossroads, a mostly redundant and unnecesary cellular network meant to benefit the ILECs who are not verizon. On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 10:11:27AM -0600, Chuck McCown wrote: The phone system was not developed by tax dollars. It was developed by guys like Art Brothers who hand built miles of open wire pole lines by himself. He later got loans from the REA (later to become the RUS) to improve his system. A program that serves as a profit center for the us government. You all should be thanking the RUS for making your income tax bill lower through money that flows from that program to the general fund. Do you really think Ma Bell was not profitable and had to be supported by taxes? When I think of blue chip stock, I think of the old ATT. How was the phone system developed by tax dollars? 120 years ago there was a boom in telecommunications with in some cases multiple LECs in the same city. Government regulation stepped in to create the monopoly and to tax it. But they did not build the bell system or any of the independents. - Original Message - From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:04 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] gotta love USF Chuck, so your definition of a tax is if you are forced to pay? Keeping in mind that the phone system was developed as a public utility by tax dollars that we all were forced to pay. IMO, that means that we should be able use it without being encumbered by fees other than what are necessary to support the system is was designed for. Am I really off base here? -RickG On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Chuck McCown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Use magic jack, ham radio, smoke signals, skype or the post office. Your telephone bill comes from a commercial enterprise. You do not have to participate. Therefore you are not forced to pay into our charity program. That is not a tax. - Original Message - From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] gotta love USF Tacking a fee on my telephone bill is a form of taxation. -RickG On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Chuck McCown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The current USF audits by USAC are turning up collusion between school districts (the principle is the brother of the local ISP) and provider of goods and services of E-rate funded projects. The audits have not shown any telephone company to be misusing this money. And I want to repeat, this is not taxpayer money. Most
Re: [WISPA] any got this Tranzeo antenna in stock?
Tranzeo said it's a rebranded MTI. DoubleRadius said they order it from their PacWireless distributor. I didn't gamble and just went with a true MTI. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Ralph [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 8:57 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] any got this Tranzeo antenna in stock? Isn't it just a rebadged pac wireless unit? -Original Message- From: Kurt Fankhauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 3:17 PM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] any got this Tranzeo antenna in stock? Looking for Qty 3x Tranzeo TR-24H-120-13. Units are on 4 week backorder from Tranzeo and Doublradius has no stock. Hit me off list if anyone's got these 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] NOGO's
Anyone have issues with Yagi's and ice buildup vs. a grid dish? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: D. Ryan Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 11:40 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] NOGO's The first gen Tranzeos were not so good At all. The 902 serieis.. Much better. 900 can be voodoo though. I consider it and a 18 db yagi the last chance for desperate customers. ryan -Original Message- From: Randy Cosby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 9:24 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] NOGO's I think this number is going to fluctuate a lot depending on a number of things. 1. Frequencies available - we typically only use 5.8 or 2.3 (MMDS). Not good for NLOS installations. I'm looking into 900 for some areas to get around this problem.. 2. Topography. Big flat areas with mountains surrounding them will be easier to hit with high-up towers. Crazy southwest desert outcroppings, cinder cones, canyons, etc. make it difficult here. 3. Vegetation - palms vs pine trees 4. Area covered / density. Chuck and Travis have HUGE areas. I'm impressed with how much they do cover. I do agree that nogo numbers are something we need to study more closely and try to improve upon. Some great ideas here (google mapping nogos, etc.) Doing coverage maps with Radio Mobile and Google Maps / Earth is not really hard. We use those extensively. I'll try to write something up soon. Randy RickG wrote: About 35%. You cant get them all. What do you think an acceptable number would be? -RickG On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Along a different line... What is everyone's percentage on NOGO's (that's what we call people we try to install and can't get a good enough signal)? Ours was quite a bit higher than I thought when I looked a few days ago... Out of 1,500+ completed installs during the last 12 months, we had 208 people we couldn't install successfully. If we only had more time to find more tower locations... :( Travis Microserv Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: We always assume we will get a signal. We are rarely wrong. - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General List Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 9:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Tranzeo] New Update - Tranzeo/Mtik disconnectissueOct7th, 2008 So there are people that don't roll a truck because some software says you may not be able t [The entire original message is not included] 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] old utility poles
One better... I have a friend do it... Free to have it done, but I don't have to climb the damn thing. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 8:37 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] old utility poles I still have my hooks and belt. - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 10:10 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] old utility poles Climb? I bought a bucket truck so that I'd never have to do that again. (ex linesman here) marlon - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 8:11 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] old utility poles We use them at times. That is a pretty good price if they are in good enough shape to climb. - Original Message - From: Patrick Nix Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 9:09 AM Subject: [WISPA] old utility poles Anyone using old utility poles for aerial real estate? Our local electric company has agreed to let us have the old extracted poles for $0.20/ft. any suggestions for installing poles and mounting equipment onto them? Lengths are 30-40ft Thanks __ Patrick Nix, Jr., csweb.net (918) 235-0414 http://www.csweb.net http://www.csweb.net/ E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ATTENTION: This e-mail may contain information that is confidential in nature. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the sender immediately. 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/ 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] Wood Pole Towers (Was: Re: Trylon Titan Foundation Work)
They go 10% + 2' into the ground, depending on soil conditions. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: 3-dB Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 4:33 PM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wood Pole Towers (Was: Re: Trylon Titan Foundation Work) Your local friendly telco would be able to help on the sourcing... I was working with a telco last winter that installed a 65 foot pole for us... 10 foot I think was underground... anyways he said the price on new poles had gone through the roof lately... I think that pole cost them $1k or so. My point being... a Trylon tower or equivalent may be a better bet overall. I would personally only choose a pole if I could get them for dirt cheap, or they were already existing. I think long run a tower is a better investment. My 2 cents... Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Jenkins Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 3:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Wood Pole Towers (Was: Re: Trylon Titan Foundation Work) So who do I talk to, to get one of these wood poles and how do I get it installed? Is it possible to get them about 75ft above ground? I have a few sites this would work very nicely. - Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Easy project Foundation for a 40 Trylon is probably something like 6 x 6 x 4'. Any concrete contractor should be able to do this real cheap. 6 yards of crete at $90 or so a yard. Rent a mini excavator for about $200. Rebar the hole another couple of hundred. Install the base, make sure its level, pour the crete, float and wait. Build the tower on the ground and lift it in place with a boom truck. Boom truck for a couple of hours should be less than $500. Do it yourself for $1600 or less. Have contractors do it for around $2500-3000 or so. I don't know what your antenna loading is but a 60' telephone pole with climbing steps is a lot cheaper. Like $2K. Good luck Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry 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] RB133Cs
Is there much of a market for used RB133Cs? I have a few of them that I discovered don't have enough enough memory, so I have been replacing them with higher memory units. I figured I'd sell them instead of put them on a shelf or throw them away. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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/
Re: [WISPA] RB133Cs
I'm not done replacing them all, so I'm not sure how many I'll have when I'm done. I'm going to guess 10 - 15 boards. Would $30/each be fair? Just over half the price of a new RB411, depending on where you get it. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Blair Davis Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 2:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] RB133Cs If the price is right, I'd be interested... How many? Mike Hammett wrote: Is there much of a market for used RB133Cs? I have a few of them that I discovered don't have enough enough memory, so I have been replacing them with higher memory units. I figured I'd sell them instead of put them on a shelf or throw them away. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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/ 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] NOC
Here's a NOC... http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/images/media/photos/73764g2_hires.jpg -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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] Damn, Ubiquiti
Not meaning to sound like an ad here... Has anyone else come out with so many products so fast as Ubiquiti? I just got an email from them announcing 4 new product lines with radios without antennas at $39 and cheaper NanoStations at $49. Post reviews if anyone gets any of these. I wonder if they've solved their supply line issues... -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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/
Re: [WISPA] Spammers or not?
Apparently there's the widely accepted terms and then each individual's term, which can vary quite widely. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Paul Dowling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 2:10 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Spammers or not? The definition of spam is an unsolicited e-mail. Obviously we didn't ask you to sendus the request so it was an unsolicited e-mail. Just because you politely ask to send spam doesn't make it right. On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Paul Dowling wrote: I was pissed when Butch Evans sent his spam from the list. You click a link to unsubscribe, then they send you another e-mail to verify your unsubscription and you have to return the e-mail or click on a link. Double opt-out?!?!?! I just blocked his whole domain in our spam filter for the entire network. There was no spam sent. In fact, the original message was intended to ask your permission to do so. The unsubscribe is normal for a mailman list. It is not double opt-out at all. It is a confirmation message. The reason I configured it that way was so that you could be certain you were no longer subscribed. -- *Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks* *http://www.wisp-forums.com/*http://www.wisp-wiki.com/ *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer* 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] RF Radiation Analysis
Well, that depends on the carrier. There's a lot of 1800 - 1900 MHz cell use out there vs. 800\900 MHz. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 9:29 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] RF Radiation Analysis I would ask them what a permissible level would be, then I would give them some average levels of exposure due to cell phone and microwave oven leakage (and wireless routers, maybe) showing them to be thousands of times higher than the wisp gear. You could always put up an AP and use a spectrum analyzer to show how much weaker your signal is compared to the residents cell phone. If they cannot cite a level, then an analysis cannot be done. You can cite FCC docs on legal levels of exposure. Also emphasize that cell phone frequencies are centered around maximum biological heating frequencies. Wisp gear is much higher (unless you are using 900 of course). - Original Message - From: Paul Dowling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:09 AM Subject: [WISPA] RF Radiation Analysis I have a building that wants us to perform an RF Radiation Analysis to ensure we aren'tradiating the residents. Anyone know an affordable way to do this? 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] Raining on the whitespaces parade
Isn't that what the elected are supposed to do? Make decisions as to what they feel their constituency wants without directly asking them every time? If you don't like whomever was voted in, you vote someone in that will speak more in line with what you desire. I would love to hear what others have to say on this issue before I file my own comments. I was going to file saying Yup, I agree with WISPA until Marlons comments. Now I want to know what others think. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:29 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade Hi All, As a member of the FCC committee and a long term DC participant (first went there as a WISP in 2001 or 2002) I feel I have to point out some critical flaws in our proposals. I said much of this at the committee level but to no avail. First, let me say this though. The filing is masterful. It's a GREAT document. My heartburn has nothing to do with the document it's self or the hard work that's gone into it. My heartburn is content based. Well, most of it is anyway. I have a problem with WISPA changing it's stance from unlicensed to licensed lite without having consulted with the membership on this issue. Our last team came back from DC and told us what our new position was. That's NOT what I help found WISPA for. I could have just stayed with a couple of the other associations that I've been a part of and been man handled like that. Lest anyone take this the wrong way, I happen to LIKE the licensed lite concept. I just don't like having a committee that will make a major change without discussion before hand. If there was discussion that said we were going to move from unlicensed to licensed lite and I missed it then I missed it. I know there had been discussion about the idea but nothing voted on by anyone when it came to an official stance. Not the way to run this railroad in my, not so, humble opinion. Now, to the whitespaces issue. I have MAJOR problems with the stance on adjacent channels. We give up 3 for 1 every time a TV channel, or microphone etc. fires up in our area. A TV station goes live and we don't loose the channel that they are on, we loose it and 2 on each side. This means that in any market that has as little as 1/3rd of the channels in use by licensed operators (TV stations AND mics) will be totally useless for us. Why not simply set the out of band emissions standards high enough that we CAN use adjacent channels? I begged for that language, it satisfies both us and the broadcasters. I know it's not technically possible today. So what? Just tonight as I was working on an AP I saw a customer connected at the 18meg speed with a signal level of -96. Who'd have imagined that would be possible just a couple of year ago? Next, I HATE geolocation as the only mechanism. I use circles on a map. I know how inaccurate they really are. They also change dramatically as the technology changes. When I started my WISP in 2000 a 15 mile cell size was the max. And if we got anywhere near 1 meg with a 4 watt EIRP system that also amped the receive signal by 14ish dB we were oh so happy. Now I can go even further than that and get 2 to 3 megs with NO amp and an eirp of 1 watt or so. Same exact CPE units that were in place when we pulled the AP'd ap system out. Actual signal measurement is really the only way to accurately determine interference issues. Well, OK, I guess one could just put a large enough exclusion zone around the broadcasters to make sure that there is no interference. Unfortunately that also means we end up with even less market potential. Here is my idea for whitespaces. This is what I'll be personally filing. I'll fine tune it and likely add some ideas that slip my mind right now. I'm still more than a bit miffed that there wasn't even a vote on our filing (I know I'm whining, but I'm well and truly pissed). Geolocation should be used until such time as a sensing mechanism can be found that will work. Lets be honest here guys. NO one knows IF the FCC will even allow white spaces use let alone with a sensing system. Just how much R and D do you think was put into this project in this economy? Sensing works great on $60 WiFi cards for God's sake! (Listen before talk, CSMAK.) It'll work for TV channels as well. It'll just take a little more time and effort. Set a high standard, one that will protect the licensed users and then let the market go to work on the problem. Once sales opportunities actually exist people will start working on ways to make this happen. Licensed lite is a great idea. There should be NO first in mechanism
Re: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade
Maybe I'm asking too much here, but shouldn't the plan include something to get it passed as quickly as possible as well as a defined pathway to what we actually want? Again borrowing from 3650, a lot of devices can use the lower 25 MHz, but the FCC is holding out on the upper 25 MHz until certain requirements are met. Maybe we'll have to give up adjacent channel usage to get it pushed through, but we really want to use that spectrum. Maybe we'll have to settle with geolocation to get it pushed through, but we really want sensing. IIRC, some companies made test sensing equipment that worked just fine. GPS synch is good within a single company as you're likely to have the same policies. However, other companies could tune for other things, making GPS synch meaningless. I believe 802.16h and 802.11y have been working out the whole access-point-sharing-air-time issue. I believe 802.22 is what I'm wanting, but I don't have enough time to figure out it's intricacies and I'm hoping someone here knows more about it than I do. Disagreeing with Marlon, I fully support channel bonding in the white spaces. 6 MHz isn't enough these days to do real data throughput. However, I don't want to see something like Tsunami again, using all of 5 GHz to do what, 45 megabits? I hate to see regulation tied to technology, but maybe there needs to be a minimum bit/Hz to do bonding. The 6 MHz TV channels would only yield approximately 19 mbit/s. We need systems capable of using 2 or 3 channels to provide real bandwidth while still protecting oversubscription. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:29 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade Hi All, As a member of the FCC committee and a long term DC participant (first went there as a WISP in 2001 or 2002) I feel I have to point out some critical flaws in our proposals. I said much of this at the committee level but to no avail. First, let me say this though. The filing is masterful. It's a GREAT document. My heartburn has nothing to do with the document it's self or the hard work that's gone into it. My heartburn is content based. Well, most of it is anyway. I have a problem with WISPA changing it's stance from unlicensed to licensed lite without having consulted with the membership on this issue. Our last team came back from DC and told us what our new position was. That's NOT what I help found WISPA for. I could have just stayed with a couple of the other associations that I've been a part of and been man handled like that. Lest anyone take this the wrong way, I happen to LIKE the licensed lite concept. I just don't like having a committee that will make a major change without discussion before hand. If there was discussion that said we were going to move from unlicensed to licensed lite and I missed it then I missed it. I know there had been discussion about the idea but nothing voted on by anyone when it came to an official stance. Not the way to run this railroad in my, not so, humble opinion. Now, to the whitespaces issue. I have MAJOR problems with the stance on adjacent channels. We give up 3 for 1 every time a TV channel, or microphone etc. fires up in our area. A TV station goes live and we don't loose the channel that they are on, we loose it and 2 on each side. This means that in any market that has as little as 1/3rd of the channels in use by licensed operators (TV stations AND mics) will be totally useless for us. Why not simply set the out of band emissions standards high enough that we CAN use adjacent channels? I begged for that language, it satisfies both us and the broadcasters. I know it's not technically possible today. So what? Just tonight as I was working on an AP I saw a customer connected at the 18meg speed with a signal level of -96. Who'd have imagined that would be possible just a couple of year ago? Next, I HATE geolocation as the only mechanism. I use circles on a map. I know how inaccurate they really are. They also change dramatically as the technology changes. When I started my WISP in 2000 a 15 mile cell size was the max. And if we got anywhere near 1 meg with a 4 watt EIRP system that also amped the receive signal by 14ish dB we were oh so happy. Now I can go even further than that and get 2 to 3 megs with NO amp and an eirp of 1 watt or so. Same exact CPE units that were in place when we pulled the AP'd ap system out. Actual signal measurement is really the only way to accurately determine interference issues. Well, OK, I guess one could just put a large enough exclusion zone around the broadcasters to make sure that there is no interference
Re: [WISPA] Defaulting a CCU3100
Wait long enough, sooner or later it won't pay its mortgage on time. haha, sorry :-D -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: John McDowell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 11:08 AM To: Motorola Canopy User Group [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org; wisp [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WISPA] Defaulting a CCU3100 Does anyone know how to default a CCU3100? -- John M. McDowell Boonlink Communications 307 Grand Ave NW Fort Payne, AL 35967 256.844.9932 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.boonlink.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing, spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the source, please contact the sender directly. 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] Raining on the whitespaces parade
*nods* WISPA should have a solid stance, whatever that may be. That allows individual operators to say (which I intend to do), I agree with WISPA except on this one (or two) points.. I'm sure nothing proposed is so grotesque to anyone that they couldn't follow if that was approved. My intent in generating discussion was for education. All I know about white spaces is what I read in the WISPA filing, what the 802.22 Wikipedia entry says, and the occasional article on device testing. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:42 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade I can tell you myself that I have personally spent hundreds of hours toward this effort, as has Marlon. As with any group effort there is no way to please everyone. After exhaustive discussions between everyone over 3 plus years our FCC committee worked together to develop a stance. I believe that within our committee Marlon is the only person who does not support the WISPA filing 100%. There is no way to have a vote for everything and frankly we usually see low turnout for votes or surveys. What we do is have open discussions with everyone and we try to develop a consensus. This discussion has been taking place since the beginning of WISPA and nobody has been denied a chance to speak their wishes regarding this proposed filing. Please read the plan delivered in the WISPA filing and see what we have done. We have all developed a plan that EVERYONE except ATT and Verizon will support. The only people who cannot live with or should not support our filing are those who are only happy with having their own ideas supported exclusively every time. We cannot allow one person's ideas to control what we file as an organization. We have not done this with this filing. Our filing represents everyone's ideas as accurately and fairly as anyone could have ever done. I will never try to downplay Marlon's role, or my own for that matter, but to say this was not a joint consensus position, as Marlon has said, is just not right. Every part of this has been given lengthy discussion, thought and effort and it represents a real way for us to use this band efficiently and effectively to deliver broadband. It is superior to wild west unlicensed-only policy and has every other advantage of unlicensed supported. In fact it has provisions for pure unlicensed represented in the plan. When we get our policies supported in the final FCC Report and Order of the TV Whitespace then everyone here should know you all played a strong role in developing what was delivered to the FCC. You should know that with this policy WISPs will finally be represented fairly in spectrum policy. Please read our filing and let your own decision making process decide whether this filing deserves your support. I know it does even if many of my own ideas were not part of the final filing. It is the plan for our future and we should all support it fully. If there are things you would like to see done differently then by all means speak your mind with your own filing. We have delivered the tools directly to you to allow you to speak your mind with the link to the comment reporting process and instructions on how to do so. Nobody is being denied a voice. I believe it is possible for all of us to say we like this in the WISPA filing and that in the WISPA filing but maybe we wanted to see this added or that changed or this removed. I see nothing to gain in us arguing amongst ourselves about the process which led us to this filing. It is the best filing we have ever made as an organization in form and content and we need to show our support for it. With sincerest respect for all, John Scrivner On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't that what the elected are supposed to do? Make decisions as to what they feel their constituency wants without directly asking them every time? If you don't like whomever was voted in, you vote someone in that will speak more in line with what you desire. I would love to hear what others have to say on this issue before I file my own comments. I was going to file saying Yup, I agree with WISPA until Marlons comments. Now I want to know what others think. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:29 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade Hi All, As a member of the FCC committee and a long term DC participant (first went there as a WISP in 2001 or 2002) I feel I have
Re: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade
The difference between sensing in 5 GHz and sensing in TV spaces is that the TV transmitters are published and easily accessed in terms of location, height, transmitter power, etc. The military radars are supposedly secret. Without long term spectrum analysis, you have no way of knowing if military radar is in your area... and it may not even be a station activated at this time, but still able to be powered on in 3 years, once you've built a big network around it. To keep things simple, I'll speak to analog channels. Channels 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 26, 32, 44, and 50 are the major Chicago stations. If I try to use channel 9 around here with sensing, I deserve to get kicked out. Sensing should allow me to be closer to Davenport, IA's channel 6 based on real world measurements than what an extremely conservative database would permit. The database would take into account worst case actions. The sensing would take into account what the radio is actually doing. How much bandwidth can a microphone really use? I'm actually against any unlicensed use in this band, or if there is, keep it similar to 5.1 GHz rules... a power so low it's practically useless. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Forrest W. Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:58 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade I'm going to ignore the first part of your email (since I'm sure others will discuss), and point out a couple of things you missed: Marlon K. Schafer wrote: I have MAJOR problems with the stance on adjacent channels. We give up 3 for 1 every time a TV channel, or microphone etc. fires up in our area. The proposal indicates that we give up the channel, plus the adjacent ones for each DTV channel not microphone users. I'm not sure where it occured, but there was one discussion I participated in where part of the discussion were that the microphone users indicated they were perfectly happy in the middle of the adjacent channels. As a microphone user myself, I know that I'm happy operating on adjacent channels. So, say you have a location where channels 1 and 5 are used. We could locate on channel 3. The microphone users would end up on channels 2 and 4, since they would not be limited by the adjacent channel limitation.The purpose of the microphone users being in the database, in my mind, is so we know where they are and so we can either work around or with them... For instance, if they were on channel 3, we could perhaps work with them to clear out channel 3 for our own use. I think the idea is that you separate high power, nominally-licensed users by at least one channel, and then you can let the unlicensed users use what is left. Next, I HATE geolocation as the only mechanism. Ask many operators in 5.2 and 5.4 about how well they like sensing, and you'll understand why sensing does not make sense. I like the proposal, in that it basically says, broadcasters are important in this band, and so are the WISP's running licensed lite. Both of you should be able to put out plenty of power, as long as you don't interfere with each other - and since we can define where your transmitters are, you don't have to use sensing. If you instead want to operate unlicensed you can do that as well, but you must use lower power and sensing. I agree that unlicensed operation in this band is of interest, but I am also a firm believer that permitting even 1W using just sensing is never going to fly, just because of the interference potential - what if a device with a deaf receiver decides it can't hear anything on a TV station's channel and fires up running 20W? For high power, we're probably going to have to live with geolocation. If we have to live with geolocation, why don't we just discard the sensing since all it will do is reduce reliability of the service? Geolocation should be used until such time as a sensing mechanism can be found that will work. Already in the proposal. Sensing can be used for unlicensed devices. Licensed lite is a great idea. There should be NO first in mechanism though. This leads to those with all of the money getting all of the prime slots and the rest of us sucking hind teet again. From the proposal: In the unlikely event that no non-interfering base station facilities could be designed through techniques such as location changes, power reductions, antenna polarity changes or channel selection, the registrant and the incumbent registrant would be obligated to negotiate in good faith to coordinate their facilities for a period of 30 days and keep records of their discussions in case the information is needed by the Commission. Just think about how many mics could cover the Indy 500 if they effectively had 1000 channels available
[WISPA] Pipe mount
What are you guys using to mount something like a RooTenna to a vent pipe on a roof? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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] What I sent to my friends, customers, etc.
You are greatly encouraged to pass this email along. Please take a few minutes to file comments on this proceeding. Comments are due Tuesday, October 28th, 2008. The passage of this with friendly terms to Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) would be a great benefit to my company, Intelligent Computing Solutions. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload?hot_docket=1009000856|04-186|TV+White+SpacesSend=Continue or if the above link doesn't open a form http://tinyurl.com/5v3soz To summarize what this is about, TV white spaces are the channels in between broadcast channels that aren't a TV station. The Federal Government is contemplating whether to open the usage of this space to other users. Why this space is so important is that it will allow my Internet signals to go longer distances, through trees and buildings. It would allow me to service anyone in a certain radius of my towers because nothing really gets in the way. This space is prime space as it travels through anything, goes long distances, and also is large enough to support high speed Internet. The licensed lite method removes a multiple billion dollar barrier to me using this space and prevents the flood of consumer electronics into the space, making providing service significantly more difficult, if not impossible. The greatest benefit will be to we rural members of America where the low population density and large geographic area makes providing high speed services difficult and relatively expensive. If you want more information certainly ask me at (address removed on the list copy). What do you say? It could be as simple as the following: I fully support the Intelligent Computing Solutions proposal for the LICENSED LITE usage of TV white spaces for wireless broadband. I won't be filing my comments for a couple days so I have the best proposal I can create before the deadline, but you can be assured that it will be there. You should be able to see my comments, once posted, at the following address. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=retrieve_listid_proceeding=04-186applicant_name=Intelligent%20Computing%20Solutions or http://tinyurl.com/59prgr -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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/
Re: [WISPA] ****Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments!****
Is there a search feature for the comments? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 10:32 AM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Motorola Canopy User Group' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 'WISPA Board Members List' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'STEPHEN E. CORAN' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'WISPA's FCC Committee' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WISPA] Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments! Wispa Members and List Users, Yesterday, WISPA filed our Ex Parte Comments for FCC Docket 04-186, Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands Additional Spectrum for unlicensed devices below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz band. The submission can be found at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_docume nt=6520176838 id_document=6520176838. Please review our comments first. Jack Unger, Steve Coran of Rini/Coran and the entire FCC Committee spent hours lobbying, discussing, researching and writing these comments which encourage unlicensed use of the TV Whitespaces which will be opened up in Feb. 2009 due to the Digital TV transition. We owe all of these people many thanks and it is our responsibility to support their efforts by submitting our support through individual comments. While reviewing the comments on the FCC website this morning, it became apparent to me that there is stiff competition from the AV industry against this proposal. I reviewed nearly 300 comments from people all over the US in opposition to this FCC proposal. I did see several which supported the use of these bands for Wireless Broadband but we are heavily outnumbered. There are currently over 30,000 comments filed under this docket. Others see how important this is, our industry needs to understand it as well. It is my responsibility to all of the WISP operators to encourage each of you to file your comments in full support of the WISPA Ex Parte Comments or at least partial support with clarification if you oppose some part of our comments. I will be filing my comments as soon as I finish this email. This is a huge opportunity for each of us to help educate the FCC commissioners on the importance of opening up this valuable spectrum to unlicensed (light licensed) operation for wireless broadband. You can review all comments at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=ret rieve_list http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=re trieve_listid_proceeding=04-186 id_proceeding=04-186. Please go to http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload?hot_docket=1009000856|04-186|TV+White+S paces http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload?hot_docket=1009000856|04-186|TV+White+ SpacesSend=Continue Send=Continue to file your comments today. The deadline is quickly approaching with the FCC Commissioners set to publicize the rules for these bands on November 4th. It is essential that you take 5-10 minutes out of your busy schedule today or tomorrow to write and file your comments. Rick Harnish President WISPA 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] What I sent to my friends, customers, etc.
Indeed. The highest channel here in the proposed space is 50, so there's I think 1 channel that's not between the lowest (2) and the highest. :-p -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:08 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] What I sent to my friends, customers, etc. One point of technical clarification. The white spaces also address the unused TV channels in an area, not just the spaces in between. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:52 PM To: WISPA List Subject: [WISPA] What I sent to my friends, customers, etc. You are greatly encouraged to pass this email along. Please take a few minutes to file comments on this proceeding. Comments are due Tuesday, October 28th, 2008. The passage of this with friendly terms to Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) would be a great benefit to my company, Intelligent Computing Solutions. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload?hot_docket=1009000856|04-186|TV+White+S pacesSend=Continue or if the above link doesn't open a form http://tinyurl.com/5v3soz To summarize what this is about, TV white spaces are the channels in between broadcast channels that aren't a TV station. The Federal Government is contemplating whether to open the usage of this space to other users. Why this space is so important is that it will allow my Internet signals to go longer distances, through trees and buildings. It would allow me to service anyone in a certain radius of my towers because nothing really gets in the way. This space is prime space as it travels through anything, goes long distances, and also is large enough to support high speed Internet. The licensed lite method removes a multiple billion dollar barrier to me using this space and prevents the flood of consumer electronics into the space, making providing service significantly more difficult, if not impossible. The greatest benefit will be to we rural members of America where the low population density and large geographic area makes providing high speed services difficult and relatively expensive. If you want more information certainly ask me at (address removed on the list copy). What do you say? It could be as simple as the following: I fully support the Intelligent Computing Solutions proposal for the LICENSED LITE usage of TV white spaces for wireless broadband. I won't be filing my comments for a couple days so I have the best proposal I can create before the deadline, but you can be assured that it will be there. You should be able to see my comments, once posted, at the following address. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=ret rieve_listid_proceeding=04-186applicant_name=Intelligent%20Computing%20Sol utions or http://tinyurl.com/59prgr -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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/ 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] Raining on the whitespaces parade
There is no channel one. ;-) To do a little more homework... At my house, according to AntennaWeb, I can get channels (now referring to digital only, since after February, that's all that will remain). 12, 13, 16, 19, 23, 27, 29, 31, 36, 38, 41, 42, 43, 45, 50, 51, 52, and 59 and AntennaWeb says that the list is conservative and that I may be able to receive more. Under WISPA's proposal, these channels would be unavailable: 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 58, 59, and 60. These would be my usable channels: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 21, 25, 33, 34, 47, 48, 54, 55, 56, and 57. A total of 114 MHz. Just to mention, someone mentioned channel size. TV channels are 6 MHz wide, but I believe the IEEE plans for the TV whitespaces include channel bonding, allowing us to do something usable with them. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 2:23 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade To keep things simple, I'll speak to analog channels. Channels 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 26, 32, 44, and 50 are the major Chicago stations. If I try to use channel 9 around here with sensing, I deserve to get kicked out. Sensing should allow me to be closer to Davenport, IA's channel 6 based on real world measurements than what an extremely conservative database would permit. The database would take into account worst case actions. The sensing would take into account what the radio is actually doing. Under the proposal the following stations will be totally off limits to you in any licensed lite way. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,25,26,27,31,32,33,43,44,45,49,50, and, finally, 51. No technology improvements would give those channels to you without an FCC rule update. And we've been working on this issue for what, 4 years now? Sure takes a big bite out of what you could have done! 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/
Re: [WISPA] easily importing long/lat into Google Earth
KMZ file? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Rogelio [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 6:25 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] easily importing long/lat into Google Earth How do you import longitude and latitude data into google earth? (I'm googling on how to do it, but don't see an easy answer) 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] Whitespaces filing
On the multiple TV channels on the same RF channel... I believe in that case, it's 1x HD or multiple SD. In the age of HD, you still only get 1 channel. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:52 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Whitespaces filing Marlon, This is probably one of your best filings to date. Nicely done and well written. I have a few comments and/or suggestions in line. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 1:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Whitespaces filing Hi All, Here is my first draft of an FCC filing on the 04-186 white spaces issue. To file your own comments go here: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi Enter 04-186 into the blue box. Follow the instructions. The main location for filing docs is: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ You can search for existing filings there. I'd love to have people's input on this filing. Any and all comments are desired, pro or con. I'll try to file this late on Monday. Dear Ms. Dortch, Odessa Office Equipment is one of the nations first WISP operators. We started our ISP in the spring of 1997 and installed our first wireless system in the winter of 1999/2000. We now cover parts of 4 counties in eastern Washington state. The bulk of our coverage is in western Lincoln and eastern Grant counties. Lincoln county has approximately 10,000 citizens with Grant county coming in at about 40,000. These are also some of the geographically largest counties in the state. We have roughly 6000 square miles of coverage serviced by about 30 transmit sites, most with multiple access points. Due to the low power restrictions in the 5.3 and 5.4 GHz bands we are not able to use those bands to service customers in any meaningful fashion. Almost all of our network has been built using WiFi based devices at 2.4 GHz. This has been mainly due to cost and range considerations. However, as you know the tragedy of the commons has created a huge problem in the 2.4 GHz band. When I first started operations there were a large number of cell phone and public safety backhaul systems in place. Mainly using Western Multiplex (or the older Glenair gear) always on systems that typically used all or most of the band per link. Naturally most of those systems were also located on the higher ground that we also needed to use. Over the years we have gotten quite good at using coverage zone, antenna polarity, and power level tuning to allow us to operate in that environment. But now, most of those systems have been replaced with licensed point to point links. In their place we see a HUGE number of unlicensed devices. In my home town of Odessa a brief scan (about 60 seconds) for WiFI access points done by only one of my AP's shows that it detects around 80 other AP's. This may not seem like many, but please remember that Odessa is in a bowl, nothing is being detected from out of town and there are less than 1000 people living here! In Ephrata, that same test, done from a distance of about one mile and with a 45* sector netted 99 AP's in a one minute scan! We are also seeing a significant problem with system to system interference. Or, self inflicted interference. Due to practical client per AP limitations and interference rejection we often have more than one AP per site. For more info on this problem and how we try to deal with it please see: http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/3756431 As you can see, a better standard in an outdoor friendly band is desperately needed if we are to meet the next decade's needs in the broadband industry. As the only viable 3rd rail of broadband the FCC should insure that WISPs can continue to service rural un or under served markets as well as force competition in more dense markets. By and large I agree with WISPA's stance on Whitespaces. A licensed lite approach brings several self evident advantages to the table. I fully support the concept. Knowing that almost all WISPs are self funded and often self staffed it's important that care be taken to insure that any licensing mechanism is inexpensive in both dollars and time. I also agree that much higher power levels are needed today in much of the country. If there are trees in the area it takes power to penetrate them in meaningful distances. In open ground long distances are needed (30 to 40 mile cell sizes should be an option). In my area we have rolling hills, tree lines as windbreaks and line of site in the 50 to 60 mile ranges. 30 to 40 mile line
Re: [WISPA] ****Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments!****
When I search 04-186, I don't get WISPA's current comment. Only one filed 4 years ago. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:06 PM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments! http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:26 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments! Is there a search feature for the comments? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 10:32 AM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Motorola Canopy User Group' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 'WISPA Board Members List' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'STEPHEN E. CORAN' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'WISPA's FCC Committee' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WISPA] Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments! Wispa Members and List Users, Yesterday, WISPA filed our Ex Parte Comments for FCC Docket 04-186, Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands Additional Spectrum for unlicensed devices below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz band. The submission can be found at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_docume nt=6520176838 id_document=6520176838. Please review our comments first. Jack Unger, Steve Coran of Rini/Coran and the entire FCC Committee spent hours lobbying, discussing, researching and writing these comments which encourage unlicensed use of the TV Whitespaces which will be opened up in Feb. 2009 due to the Digital TV transition. We owe all of these people many thanks and it is our responsibility to support their efforts by submitting our support through individual comments. While reviewing the comments on the FCC website this morning, it became apparent to me that there is stiff competition from the AV industry against this proposal. I reviewed nearly 300 comments from people all over the US in opposition to this FCC proposal. I did see several which supported the use of these bands for Wireless Broadband but we are heavily outnumbered. There are currently over 30,000 comments filed under this docket. Others see how important this is, our industry needs to understand it as well. It is my responsibility to all of the WISP operators to encourage each of you to file your comments in full support of the WISPA Ex Parte Comments or at least partial support with clarification if you oppose some part of our comments. I will be filing my comments as soon as I finish this email. This is a huge opportunity for each of us to help educate the FCC commissioners on the importance of opening up this valuable spectrum to unlicensed (light licensed) operation for wireless broadband. You can review all comments at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=ret rieve_list http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=re trieve_listid_proceeding=04-186 id_proceeding=04-186. Please go to http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload?hot_docket=1009000856|04-186|TV+White+S paces http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload?hot_docket=1009000856|04-186|TV+White+ SpacesSend=Continue Send=Continue to file your comments today. The deadline is quickly approaching with the FCC Commissioners set to publicize the rules for these bands on November 4th. It is essential that you take 5-10 minutes out of your busy schedule today or tomorrow to write and file your comments. Rick Harnish President WISPA 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] ****Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments!****
I found 8 as well, but only one was for 04-186 and none were done in the last 17 months. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 6:51 PM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments! I searched for Wireless Internet Service Provider and found 8 records. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 7:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments! When I search 04-186, I don't get WISPA's current comment. Only one filed 4 years ago. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:06 PM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments! http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:26 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments! Is there a search feature for the comments? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 10:32 AM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Motorola Canopy User Group' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 'WISPA Board Members List' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'STEPHEN E. CORAN' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'WISPA's FCC Committee' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WISPA] Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments! Wispa Members and List Users, Yesterday, WISPA filed our Ex Parte Comments for FCC Docket 04-186, Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands Additional Spectrum for unlicensed devices below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz band. The submission can be found at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_docume nt=6520176838 id_document=6520176838. Please review our comments first. Jack Unger, Steve Coran of Rini/Coran and the entire FCC Committee spent hours lobbying, discussing, researching and writing these comments which encourage unlicensed use of the TV Whitespaces which will be opened up in Feb. 2009 due to the Digital TV transition. We owe all of these people many thanks and it is our responsibility to support their efforts by submitting our support through individual comments. While reviewing the comments on the FCC website this morning, it became apparent to me that there is stiff competition from the AV industry against this proposal. I reviewed nearly 300 comments from people all over the US in opposition to this FCC proposal. I did see several which supported the use of these bands for Wireless Broadband but we are heavily outnumbered. There are currently over 30,000 comments filed under this docket. Others see how important this is, our industry needs to understand it as well. It is my responsibility to all of the WISP operators to encourage each of you to file your comments in full support of the WISPA Ex Parte Comments or at least partial support with clarification if you oppose some part of our comments. I will be filing my comments as soon as I finish this email. This is a huge opportunity for each of us to help educate the FCC commissioners on the importance of opening up this valuable spectrum to unlicensed (light licensed) operation for wireless broadband. You can review all comments at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=ret rieve_list http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=re trieve_listid_proceeding=04-186 id_proceeding=04-186. Please go to http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload?hot_docket=1009000856|04-186|TV+White+S paces http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload?hot_docket=1009000856|04-186|TV+White+ SpacesSend=Continue Send=Continue to file your comments today. The deadline is quickly approaching with the FCC Commissioners set to publicize the rules for these bands on November 4th. It is essential that you take 5-10 minutes out of your busy schedule today or tomorrow to write and file your comments. Rick Harnish President WISPA WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] ****Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments!****
The reason I'm asking isn't to question WISPA's efforts, but to make sure that how I told my customers to find my posting actually works. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 7:03 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments! I found 8 as well, but only one was for 04-186 and none were done in the last 17 months. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 6:51 PM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments! I searched for Wireless Internet Service Provider and found 8 records. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 7:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments! When I search 04-186, I don't get WISPA's current comment. Only one filed 4 years ago. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:06 PM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments! http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:26 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments! Is there a search feature for the comments? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 10:32 AM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Motorola Canopy User Group' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 'WISPA Board Members List' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'STEPHEN E. CORAN' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'WISPA's FCC Committee' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WISPA] Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments! Wispa Members and List Users, Yesterday, WISPA filed our Ex Parte Comments for FCC Docket 04-186, Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands Additional Spectrum for unlicensed devices below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz band. The submission can be found at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_docume nt=6520176838 id_document=6520176838. Please review our comments first. Jack Unger, Steve Coran of Rini/Coran and the entire FCC Committee spent hours lobbying, discussing, researching and writing these comments which encourage unlicensed use of the TV Whitespaces which will be opened up in Feb. 2009 due to the Digital TV transition. We owe all of these people many thanks and it is our responsibility to support their efforts by submitting our support through individual comments. While reviewing the comments on the FCC website this morning, it became apparent to me that there is stiff competition from the AV industry against this proposal. I reviewed nearly 300 comments from people all over the US in opposition to this FCC proposal. I did see several which supported the use of these bands for Wireless Broadband but we are heavily outnumbered. There are currently over 30,000 comments filed under this docket. Others see how important this is, our industry needs to understand it as well. It is my responsibility to all of the WISP operators to encourage each of you to file your comments in full support of the WISPA Ex Parte Comments or at least partial support with clarification if you oppose some part of our comments. I will be filing my comments as soon as I finish this email. This is a huge opportunity for each of us to help educate the FCC commissioners on the importance of opening up this valuable spectrum to unlicensed (light licensed) operation for wireless broadband. You can review all comments at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=ret rieve_list http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=re trieve_listid_proceeding=04-186 id_proceeding=04-186. Please go to http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload?hot_docket=1009000856|04-186|TV+White+S paces http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload?hot_docket=1009000856|04-186|TV+White+ SpacesSend=Continue Send=Continue to file your comments today. The deadline is quickly approaching with the FCC
Re: [WISPA] ****Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments!****
Hrm, now I search with the same things, but I use Google Chrome instead (through admittedly quite a bit later) and now I get 61 returns. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 8:09 PM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments! 8 Record(s) Found For Proceeding:04-186 Proceeding: 04-186 Type Code: CO Date Received/Adopted: 10/22/08 Date Released/Denied: Document Type: COMMENT Total Pages: 7 File Number/Community: DA/FCC Number: Filed on Behalf of: Wireless Internet Service Providers Association Filed By: Attorney/Author Name: Date Posted Online: 10/22/08 Complete Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1582 Mt. Vernon, IL 62864 Ex http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_docume nt=6520176838 Parte Comment Attachment http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_docume nt=6520176839 Proceeding: 04-186 Type Code: NO Date Received/Adopted: 08/01/08 Date Released/Denied: Document Type: NOTICE Total Pages: 19 File Number/Community: DA/FCC Number: Filed on Behalf of: Wireless Internet Service Providers Association Filed By: Rini Coran, PC Attorney/Author Name: Stephen E. Coran Date Posted Online: 08/01/08 Complete Mailing Address: 1615 L Street, NW Suite 1325 Washington, DC 20036 NOTICE http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_docume nt=6520036571 OF EXPARTE Proceeding: 04-186 Type Code: NO Date Received/Adopted: 08/01/08 Date Released/Denied: Document Type: NOTICE Total Pages: 18 File Number/Community: DA/FCC Number: Filed on Behalf of: Wireless Internet Service Providers Association Filed By: Rini Coran, PC Attorney/Author Name: Stephen E. Coran Date Posted Online: 08/01/08 Complete Mailing Address: 1615 L Street, NW Suite 1325 Washington, DC 20036 NOTICE http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_docume nt=6520036568 OF EXPARTE Proceeding: 04-186 Type Code: NO Date Received/Adopted: 08/01/08 Date Released/Denied: Document Type: NOTICE Total Pages: 18 File Number/Community: DA/FCC Number: Filed on Behalf of: Wireless Internet Service Providers Association Filed By: Rini Coran, PC Attorney/Author Name: Stephen E. Coran Date Posted Online: 08/01/08 Complete Mailing Address: 1615 L Street, NW Suite 1325 Washington, DC 20036 NOTICE http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_docume nt=6520036567 OF EXPARTE Proceeding: 04-186 Type Code: NO Date Received/Adopted: 08/01/08 Date Released/Denied: Document Type: NOTICE Total Pages: 18 File Number/Community: DA/FCC Number: Filed on Behalf of: Wireless Internet Service Providers Association Filed By: Rini Coran, PC Attorney/Author Name: Stephen E. Coran Date Posted Online: 08/01/08 Complete Mailing Address: 1615 L Street, NW Suite 1325 Washington, DC 20036 NOTICE http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_docume nt=6520036564 OF EXPARTE Proceeding: 04-186 Type Code: CO Date Received/Adopted: 02/20/07 Date Released/Denied: Document Type: COMMENT Total Pages: 5 File Number/Community: DA/FCC Number: Filed on Behalf of: Wireless Internet Service Provider's Assco. Filed By: Attorney/Author Name: Date Posted Online: 02/20/07 Complete Mailing Address: 1 DR. Park Road Suite H1 Mt. Vernon, IL 62864 COMMENT http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_docume nt=6518807834 Proceeding: 04-186 Type Code: NO Date Received/Adopted: 04/25/06 Date Released/Denied: Document Type: NOTICE Total Pages: 4 File Number/Community: DA/FCC Number: Filed on Behalf of: Wireless Internet Service Provider's Association Filed By: Attorney/Author Name: Date Posted Online: 04/25/06 Complete Mailing Address: Box 489 Odessa, WA 99159 COMMENT http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_docume nt=6518334305 Proceeding: 04-186 Type Code: CO Date Received/Adopted: 11/24/04 Date Released/Denied: Document Type: COMMENT Total Pages: 53 File Number/Community: DA/FCC Number: Filed on Behalf of: Wireless Internet Service Provider Association, WISPA Filed By: Attorney/Author Name: Date Posted Online: 11/24/04 Complete Mailing Address: P.O. Box 489 - Odessa Wa 99159 Odessa, WA 99159 COMMENT http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_docume nt=6516883245 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Sunday, October
Re: [WISPA] OT, just wondering
That's a handy utility! -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 11:15 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT, just wondering Here's a page that will show you the generation mix in your area: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/how-clean.html About 4% comes from oil here in the DC area. Mainly for peaking power plants that need fast-start capability, I would assume. Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Jeff Broadwick wrote: I always love that picture...particularly when they show the whole world. Probably next to no oil went into keeping the lights on. We don't generate much if any of our electricity with oil. Coal, nuke, natural gas, etc. Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 11:02 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] OT, just wondering How many barrels of oil per day does it take to keep all of these lights running? http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/observatory/NightLights/lp_model.gif 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/ 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] Equip Leasing
Message Sent offlist. Thanks Mike Delp Moderator -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 12:32 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Equip Leasing Yes... Everyone check out our website article here. http://www.3dbnetworks.com/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=126 It describes in detail the various funding options out there and why you should choose each option. It was written by Todd Bergstrom, the former CEO of Mesa Networks and the CEO of 3-dB Networks. If you go here http://www.3dbnetworks.com/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=128 We have a link and some information about the company we used for our financing when we were Mesa, Landmark Financial. They are a great company to work with, and truly understand the WISP industry. If you need some Motorola gear for that financing, we may be able to work out a special deal for you... Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 11:07 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Equip Leasing Does anyone have a good relationship with a reputable equipment leasing firm? If so, who are you using? Thanks Chris Cooper This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. 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 incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1754 - Release Date: 10/29/2008 7:45 AM 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] Netflix and TiVo
That's how everything is going these days. That's why I've been badgering people to badger their vendors for gear with higher capacities and not the crap they have been shoveling (WiMAX). Keep going with the status quo and the Internet will pass you by. For some, it already has. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: CHUCK PROFITO [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 12:19 AM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Netflix and TiVo Netflix and TiVo are getting together.. more bandwidth anybody? Labor and postage gone, and we deliver it (nearly free) at the customer expense ! http://tinyurl.com/6286v8 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] Netflix and TiVo
Depending on vendor, 2xT1 here is around that price and I'm only an hour drive to downtown Chicago. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Scottie Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 8:37 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Netflix and TiVo Who is to blame for this all you can eat fiasco? My guess would be AOL back in the dialup days. I just can't seem to believe that the telco's followed suit, of course back then, the FCC rules were a little different. I guess the buffet has spread over to the broadband times. Not much you could do on dial-up at buffet level..when all speeds were basically the same and you could guess at bandwidth based on the amount of backbone bandwidth you had available compared to ports, but now it makes it hard to predict usage levels if you have various bandwidth plans. I think some applications have bypassed the amount of bandwidth we have available to us to stay in business. Of course, I operate in BFE where a 2XT1 cost over $1300/mth. The FCC thinks these new apps foster innovation...but it just spreads the digital divide even further IMHO. Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:44:05 -0500 I think the problem is until the big boys change, us little guys can't change to a metered system. Right now cable, DSL, licensed WiMax, etc. are all unlimited usage. There is no way I could change to a pay per byte model without losing a ton of customers. Exactly. For those imposing bit caps where is the bit cap at? Here comcast is doing a 250GB bit cap then you here some of there customers whining how thats not fair. No way I can afford a 250GB per month user. Matt 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/ --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth. Check out www.info-ed.com for information. 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] New form of RSTP?
RSTP is Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol Thanks Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 4:51 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] New form of RSTP? I am starting to think I am going crazy. Actually I have suspected this for a long time now. grin I was sure I saw a recent announcement here from Mikrotik that they have developed a new proprietary form of RSTP (reliable spanning tree protocol) type of layer 2 fail over support and now I cannot find this when I search for it. If anyone else saw this announcement can you please reply with a link to the story about this? I am building a backhaul ring in my network and want layer 2 failover for this backhaul ring. I am considering using Mikrotik. If anyone has similar experience with actual RSTP switching failover in the field and want to share your thoughts on implementation, issues and/or other similar options I would welcome your thoughts. Thank you, John Scrivner 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 incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1758 - Release Date: 10/31/2008 8:22 AM 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] canopy speed
That's why you join Peering Exchanges if you can. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 4:30 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] canopy speed And, as the Canopy 430 system gets rolled out, we will have 40 Mbps to deliver. We will probably give 30 down and 10 up. Statistically that gets folks on and off the system so quick there will be much more time for folks to spend in the wide open throttle mode. DSL will be left in our dust. DOCSIS and FIOS are approaching those speeds but they ain't playing in our sandbox... yet. If you have 30 Mbps burst download speeds, the bottleneck will not be in our system, it will be at the content provider end or in transiting the internet. - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 4:12 PM Subject: [WISPA] canopy speed Perception is reality. This is what you will see and this is accurate. Some times you may have to click it 2 or 3 times to get over 10 but it will usually be between 5 and 10 on the first click. And people will click and click and click until they get the highest reading. If they see 10 the are satisfied. Irrespective, when you are casually browsing and getting wide open throttle on a canopy system it is just as responsive as when I am at the office where I have GigE from my desk top to the world. 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] heavy usage customers OT: Windows updates
That hospital should be running WSUS to manage their updates. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Scottie Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 6:52 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] heavy usage customers OT: Windows updates ...and from many website's you will never get this. The traffic congestion on a 100 meg link can choke it down to less than 10 meg, with huge sites such as myspace, yahoo, and many others...not saying that it happens often. I host about 50 websites on a 3 meg connection for myself and others, and in 8 years have NEVER heard a single complaint from my webhosters. A 10 meg download from Chuck's customer to my web server will NEVER be realized. As Chuck says, the bandwidth test is on a server that the customer directly connects to across their wireless link, which is a true bandwidth check to that point. The truth is in the advertising...If he says you will get 10 meg to any place at any time, he might get busted for false adv. Not sure how he does it, but if it is worded right, he will get many more customers and no complaints...just cause of burstiness of web surfing. On another note, is their a way to cache or get a server closer to you for windows updates? I have a hospital on our network that has 60+ PC's on the inside. They are killing us with windows updates at certain times...like Service Pack 3...? Scott -- Original Message -- From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 16:06:15 -0600 Bigger number in the advertising and on your website gets the customer. We are truthful. The truth is, you will most likely see 10.2 Mbps any random time you choose to do a speed test. You will also get wide open throttle most of the time you are clicking around web sites and checking your email. DSL cannot do this. Most Comcast accounts cannot do this. Because we can do this, we get and keep customers. - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: WISPA General List Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 2:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] heavy usage customers Again, I have to say, up to 8Mbps is completely different than selling a true 8Mbps. I can sell an up to 8Mbps service using 802.11b equipment too. Maybe I'll start selling an up to 100Mbps service for the same price as all my other packages... ;) Travis Microserv [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We sell up to 8Mbps on Canopy advantage without issues. Nearly all our customers are within a couple miles though and as long as they have less than a -76, they get full speed. Rarely do we have two customers doing full speed at the same time on the same sector. (Most we have on a sector is 50) Maybe we are luckier than most The main problem on Advantage (as well as other systems) is upload. However, Canopy QoS is good and even saturated links don't affect VoIP quality. We sell a small business 8/2 package and when you see one of them soaking upload for long periods and a couple customers running outbound P2P, you start to worry a little but we haven't had any complaints due to capacity. On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Chuck, Not to rain on your parade but... I'm a little confused on how 10.2 mbps is possible w/ Canopy. Advantage series peak capacity is just for short range customers, and a large percentage of the capacity can be voided by by the farther out slower non-advantage CPEs. When Up/down rate ratios have to be pre-fined (for syncing) that limits the radio from using the ful capacity of the Radio. Its one of the big reasons that we chose Trango 8 years ago originally, so that it was infact possible to get full radio speed in one direction when it was available in low usage time, so we could quote higher speeds to business symetrical customers. Sure, if we consider 14mb real world advantage best case for Advantage series, use all advantage series CPE, and do a 70 / 30 download to upload, sure 10mbps peak downloads are possible for a single client, in that scenario. Provided that the WISP was fine with all other customers being 100% STARVED at the time the one customer was monopolizing the peak capacity. We tried that once, and it was a big mistake because it caused latency to sky rocket for all the other customers when they first attempted to use capacity, and the feel of the circuit because very bursty feeling. The short pauses made it feel like something was wrong with the circuit. TCP could not deal with it properly, it needs time to tune. Because of TCP's reaction, it actually translated to a slower experience than if we just gave customers half the speed. So My Points is Your concept of bursting a HIGH capacity for short periods is a sound
Re: [WISPA] 3.65
There are companies out there working on non-802.11 3.65 GHz systems that provide the same spectral efficiency as WiMAX, but without the WiMAX hype price tag. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 8:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] 3.65 Matt, I agree. We are looking at the same thing... putting up some 3.65ghz AP's on our bigger towers and moving heavy usage customers to that. However, until base stations are less than $8k, the WiMax people can keep spending money on advertising, trade-shows, etc. telling us how great they are, I'm not going to buy. When you can buy a licensed microwave radio link for $8k (less antennas), and you know the company is making money, there is no reason 3.65ghz base stations have to be $8k+. Hopefully at some point, they will wake up and realize there is an entire market they are missing. Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: I'm with Travis on this, with the exception of using StarOS instead of Mikrotik. It is nice to have a set of standard, mature tools such as radius, cbq/iptable rules and standard, non-vendor specific hardware to work with instead of having to use a limited, proprietary system limited to a single vendor. I've deployed/consulted on 802.11 a/b/g networks representing 8000+ CPE units and it can be made to work just fine as long as it is managed properly. Travis is a pro, and he has the experience to design his network in such a way as to maximize the performance of his equipment. There are many others out there having the same success. FWIW, I believe the most logical next step is to start moving heavy usage customers over to 3.65 WiMAX gear starting next spring. I think we are near the threshold of what is going to be possible with unlicensed equipment - barring some kind of amazing breakthrough. I foresee a need to deploy smaller and smaller cells to maintain the desired performance level. It helps to have 10mhz channel sizes available to maximize the utilization of existing spectrum, but even that is starting to get awfully crowded. Whitespaces sure would help. I spent the last two years putting up 802.11a based APs across my entire service area and migrating customers from 2.4 to them to get the higher ARPU from faster speeds and VOIP service. I foresee spending the next two years deploying licensed backhauls and 3.65 APs starting with the high traffic areas and working out to the fringes. Its the neverending story. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, We don't use DHCP. Every single customer gets a real, static IP address. We also a assign a static IP address to every radio (for management). When I posted the question a month ago about how to force an SM to connect to a specific AP on a tower, the only answer was color code. This isn't really an option, as that means the installer has to change the color code in the field. All of our current radios are setup and ready to connect to ANY tower and ANY AP on that tower without the installer doing anything in the field. And how does first level tech support even find the correct radio in the AP list for a customer on the phone? They have to scroll through 160 people to find them by MAC address? Yes, Canopy is a slower radio in today's world. 14Mbps of total throughput on a 20mhz channel is SLOW. Using Mikrotik I can get 30Mbps (double the speed) on the same channel size. Or I can use a 10mhz channel and get 15Mbps. And all these speeds can be delivered via upload or download or any combination, I don't have to set a specific percentage of up/down. And how do you guarantee 7ms latency? What happens if a customer gets 8ms? And how do they test that measurement? And what happens when a customer completely clobbers an AP and 160 customers are getting 20ms latency? Or you have interference from a new provider and all those people get 100ms latency? Travis Microserv Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: All of the complaints are easily overcome with the proper management software, DHCP reservations etc. You can easily force the SM to connect to the exact AP you want a couple different ways. And there are several non motorola software packages that do this kind of stuff. We have 5000 subs on it and we don't break a sweat in managing any of this. We put 128-160 customers per AP and they all still get 10.2 Mbps burst. Slower radio? That seems pretty fast to me. And we guarantee latency to 7 mS. Hmmm, that is pretty hard to do with anyone else. - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: WISPA General List Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 1:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] heavy usage customers We've tried Canopy... twice in fact... once about 3 years ago, and once about a month ago. We just can't make it fit into our network management (IP database, Call tracking
Re: [WISPA] 3.65
Last I knew, it was by year's end or maybe 1Q2009. They've already released some of the products they've been talking to me about. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 9:38 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 That would be great... but is there a time frame? Travis Microserv Mike Hammett wrote: There are companies out there working on non-802.11 3.65 GHz systems that provide the same spectral efficiency as WiMAX, but without the WiMAX hype price tag. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 8:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] 3.65 Matt, I agree. We are looking at the same thing... putting up some 3.65ghz AP's on our bigger towers and moving heavy usage customers to that. However, until base stations are less than $8k, the WiMax people can keep spending money on advertising, trade-shows, etc. telling us how great they are, I'm not going to buy. When you can buy a licensed microwave radio link for $8k (less antennas), and you know the company is making money, there is no reason 3.65ghz base stations have to be $8k+. Hopefully at some point, they will wake up and realize there is an entire market they are missing. Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: I'm with Travis on this, with the exception of using StarOS instead of Mikrotik. It is nice to have a set of standard, mature tools such as radius, cbq/iptable rules and standard, non-vendor specific hardware to work with instead of having to use a limited, proprietary system limited to a single vendor. I've deployed/consulted on 802.11 a/b/g networks representing 8000+ CPE units and it can be made to work just fine as long as it is managed properly. Travis is a pro, and he has the experience to design his network in such a way as to maximize the performance of his equipment. There are many others out there having the same success. FWIW, I believe the most logical next step is to start moving heavy usage customers over to 3.65 WiMAX gear starting next spring. I think we are near the threshold of what is going to be possible with unlicensed equipment - barring some kind of amazing breakthrough. I foresee a need to deploy smaller and smaller cells to maintain the desired performance level. It helps to have 10mhz channel sizes available to maximize the utilization of existing spectrum, but even that is starting to get awfully crowded. Whitespaces sure would help. I spent the last two years putting up 802.11a based APs across my entire service area and migrating customers from 2.4 to them to get the higher ARPU from faster speeds and VOIP service. I foresee spending the next two years deploying licensed backhauls and 3.65 APs starting with the high traffic areas and working out to the fringes. Its the neverending story. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, We don't use DHCP. Every single customer gets a real, static IP address. We also a assign a static IP address to every radio (for management). When I posted the question a month ago about how to force an SM to connect to a specific AP on a tower, the only answer was color code. This isn't really an option, as that means the installer has to change the color code in the field. All of our current radios are setup and ready to connect to ANY tower and ANY AP on that tower without the installer doing anything in the field. And how does first level tech support even find the correct radio in the AP list for a customer on the phone? They have to scroll through 160 people to find them by MAC address? Yes, Canopy is a slower radio in today's world. 14Mbps of total throughput on a 20mhz channel is SLOW. Using Mikrotik I can get 30Mbps (double the speed) on the same channel size. Or I can use a 10mhz channel and get 15Mbps. And all these speeds can be delivered via upload or download or any combination, I don't have to set a specific 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] 3.65
oh, and they support larger channels, so you can actually provide usable bandwidth to your customers. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 8:56 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 There are companies out there working on non-802.11 3.65 GHz systems that provide the same spectral efficiency as WiMAX, but without the WiMAX hype price tag. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 8:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] 3.65 Matt, I agree. We are looking at the same thing... putting up some 3.65ghz AP's on our bigger towers and moving heavy usage customers to that. However, until base stations are less than $8k, the WiMax people can keep spending money on advertising, trade-shows, etc. telling us how great they are, I'm not going to buy. When you can buy a licensed microwave radio link for $8k (less antennas), and you know the company is making money, there is no reason 3.65ghz base stations have to be $8k+. Hopefully at some point, they will wake up and realize there is an entire market they are missing. Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: I'm with Travis on this, with the exception of using StarOS instead of Mikrotik. It is nice to have a set of standard, mature tools such as radius, cbq/iptable rules and standard, non-vendor specific hardware to work with instead of having to use a limited, proprietary system limited to a single vendor. I've deployed/consulted on 802.11 a/b/g networks representing 8000+ CPE units and it can be made to work just fine as long as it is managed properly. Travis is a pro, and he has the experience to design his network in such a way as to maximize the performance of his equipment. There are many others out there having the same success. FWIW, I believe the most logical next step is to start moving heavy usage customers over to 3.65 WiMAX gear starting next spring. I think we are near the threshold of what is going to be possible with unlicensed equipment - barring some kind of amazing breakthrough. I foresee a need to deploy smaller and smaller cells to maintain the desired performance level. It helps to have 10mhz channel sizes available to maximize the utilization of existing spectrum, but even that is starting to get awfully crowded. Whitespaces sure would help. I spent the last two years putting up 802.11a based APs across my entire service area and migrating customers from 2.4 to them to get the higher ARPU from faster speeds and VOIP service. I foresee spending the next two years deploying licensed backhauls and 3.65 APs starting with the high traffic areas and working out to the fringes. Its the neverending story. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, We don't use DHCP. Every single customer gets a real, static IP address. We also a assign a static IP address to every radio (for management). When I posted the question a month ago about how to force an SM to connect to a specific AP on a tower, the only answer was color code. This isn't really an option, as that means the installer has to change the color code in the field. All of our current radios are setup and ready to connect to ANY tower and ANY AP on that tower without the installer doing anything in the field. And how does first level tech support even find the correct radio in the AP list for a customer on the phone? They have to scroll through 160 people to find them by MAC address? Yes, Canopy is a slower radio in today's world. 14Mbps of total throughput on a 20mhz channel is SLOW. Using Mikrotik I can get 30Mbps (double the speed) on the same channel size. Or I can use a 10mhz channel and get 15Mbps. And all these speeds can be delivered via upload or download or any combination, I don't have to set a specific percentage of up/down. And how do you guarantee 7ms latency? What happens if a customer gets 8ms? And how do they test that measurement? And what happens when a 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] SR5 vs. XR5
The XR radios listen better than the SR radios do. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Scott Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 2:55 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] SR5 vs. XR5 What I have seen is not so much an improvement in the receive db reading as in the CCQ. I don't remember how much it changed, but I have a couple of links that were having issues with intermittent drops that went away with the XR5 cards. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, It's a 2 hour drive (each way) and requires taking the link down (again). I have XR5 cards sitting on my desk... but if I'm only going to see 1db of improvement, it's not worth 5 hours of time. ;) Travis Microserv D. Ryan Spott wrote: You could just toss the cards in there and do a quick configure. $216 for the parts should be easy to show on the books. :) ryan Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, Can anyone provide any real-world experience where they replaced SR5 cards with XR5 cards on a point to point link? We have a 15 mile shot (using MT) that is just _barely_ line of site enough to establish a link. I am just wondering how much increase in signal we would see by switching cards? thanks, Travis Microserv 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 incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.6/1765 - Release Date: 11/3/2008 4:59 PM -- 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] SR5 vs. XR5
MMCX cables typically use a larger cable, so less loss. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Travis Johnson Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 2:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] SR5 vs. XR5 There is a difference between u.fl and mmcx on signal levels? Blair Davis wrote: I-2db. Maybe more, but only if you are going from u.fl pigtails to mmcx pigtails... Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, It's a 2 hour drive (each way) and requires taking the link down (again). I have XR5 cards sitting on my desk... but if I'm only going to see 1db of improvement, it's not worth 5 hours of time. ;) Travis Microserv D. Ryan Spott wrote: You could just toss the cards in there and do a quick configure. $216 for the parts should be easy to show on the books. :) ryan Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, Can anyone provide any real-world experience where they replaced SR5 cards with XR5 cards on a point to point link? We have a 15 mile shot (using MT) that is just _barely_ line of site enough to establish a link. I am just wondering how much increase in signal we would see by switching cards? thanks, Travis Microserv 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/ 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] Looks like we didn't win
Licensed Lite without unlicensed present Useful power levels We'll know for sure when the actual rules are published. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 7:56 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looks like we didn't win What exactly didn't we win? - Original Message - From: Charles Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 5:08 PM Subject: [WISPA] Looks like we didn't win http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/110408-fcc-whilte-spaces.html :( 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] Theoretical TVWS coverage
Based on TV antenna, it looks like the largest gain CPE will be around 10 dB for all but the lowest of frequencies. I just ran a Radio Mobile coverage area using a guesstimate at a white spaces system... EIRP of 20 dBm, 16 dBi sector, 10 dBi CPE, -80 dBm minimum allowed receive. The range wasn't much more than 2 miles in flat country land. With those same measurements with a 36 dBm EIRP, we have 10 miles, but terrain comes more into play here. For the extreme rural areas, this is where tower height comes into play. For everyone else, this is your foliage beater. In these areas we still need small cells for bandwidth capacity and interference rejection. Remember, the only signal levels mentioned were 40 mw for personal portable devices. Anything else is just speculation at this point. They may very well give fixed stations 4 W as they do in all other unlicensed bands. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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/
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
I can't understand why there's all this discussion of PtP... aren't there already MANY bands established for PtP, including some (6 GHz) that have quite some range to them? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:27 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Butch, Then, the music turned to noise You hit the nail right on the head, with your comment. They talked up broadband, but then gave us Personal portable instead, and said, but we really need to consider PTP, CLECs and Carriers are also a very important part of broadband delivery.. The problem was not the WISPA messengers or message, Jack, Steve and FCC committee did an awesome job, about as good as humanly possible. But the commission obviously was not listening, or chose to ignore us. What was clear is that they hear Google and Microsoft loud and clear. Atleast, we know where we stand now. We also have a focused goal moving forward. The rules are still easy to fix, if the FCC will allow it. All they have to do is waive the magic wand and change 100mw to 4w (at least for non-adjacent channels), and it'll be fixed. We can survive in UNlicensed we've done it from day one, but we can't survive without adequate power. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Wispa List wireless@wispa.org Cc: WISPA Members List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:34 PM Subject: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Commissioner Adelstein has long been a pretty good friend of our industry. In truth, I have not always agreed with him, but in his comments today he made a couple of statements that were music to my ears. Then, the music turned to noise White spaces are the blank pages on which we will write our broadband future. I can't agree more. He also said: Today’s decision is consequential to our nation’s future because wireless broadband has the potential to improve our economy and quality of life in even the remotest areas. Again, when I heard this, I thought he must REALLY get it. Then, he went on to say this: Unlicensed spectrum holds by far the most promise for maximizing the use of white spaces. Our balanced approach in this order provides the flexibility and low barriers to entry needed to provide an opportunity for everyone to make the best use of this under-used spectrum. It also implements safeguards to protect those that already make valuable use of the spectrum. WHAT? The most promise? I'm not horribly disappointed about the overall likely outcome of the rules, but how can he think that unlicensed at 100mW is going to maximize the use of anything? Unlicensed used has not been bad for us as WISPs in the past, but these power levels will not give us anywhere near the useful spectrum that the WISPA suggested licensed lite approach could have offered. I won't continue in disecting his statement since most of it was not something I am very positive about. All talk today centered around point-to-point deployments and nothing about ptmp. This is not a perfect scenario, but it's not a total loss. I strongly suggest that all interested parties (that's you if you are a WISP) at least read the statements and news release at http://www.fcc.gov/ and see for yourself. I don't think the decisions were a total loss. We did get geolocation, which is very important to WISPA's position. We also got adjacent channel space, which was very unexpected. The only real problems I see are the lack of sufficient power, which is because they chose unlicensed over license lite. Our FCC committee worked very hard to get us to this point. I don't think any of us realize how much time Jack Unger and Steve Coran put into this issue on our behalf over the past 2-3 weeks. If you have not personally thanked them, you really should take a minute to do so. My personal take on this is that they wanted to do something but not too much. I think I sense a new battleground forming when the new commission takes over next year. It is for this reason, that I urge ALL OF YOU (me, too) to do 3 things over the next few months: 1. If you are not already, become a WISPA member. We would not be at this point without your financial support. 2. If you have not already done so, become familiar with WHY the TVWS are (or will be) beneficial to you and your network. This will prepare you for the upcoming fight. 3. Join the debates which are sure to come over the next few weeks to help WISPA prepare to continue the fight for this most valuable of spectrums for our cause
Re: [WISPA] My mistake- WE WON!!!!!
(Possibly correcting things I said earlier.) The only official mention of power limits is 40 mW for adjacent channel use and higher power in non-adjacent channels. This on Page 2 of Commissioner Tate's statements. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:37 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: WISPA Board Members List [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WISPA] My mistake- WE WON! Guys, I just got word that 100mw was only for personal portable. FCC proposed rules also includes a provision for 5 Watts Fixed deployment!! WooHoo Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 10:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looks like we didn't win Yes, I agree 4 Watts would have been a huge victory, but we didn't get 4 watts. It appears that we got 100mw EIRP, which is worthless for anything other than short range personal portable devices. It appears that we got shut out. At 100mw, they might have well just auctioned it to the RBOCs, at least consumers would have had a chance to get broadband that way. We'll have to see what the rules actually say tommorrow. Maybe the Arcticle writer misunderstood, and it was 100mw radio power and 4 watts could be achieved with antenna gain. But unforutneately, I don't think so. We'll see. If it is really only 100mw EIRP, we'll need to get back up on the lobby floor, and fight for more TX power. My personal opinion is that it should still be possible to convince the FCC to allow 4 watts. I think the unlicensed community originally wanted more power also. And Geolocation w/ database meets the broadcaster's requirements. Broadcasters already endorsed 20w on non-adjacenet channels. There was no sound reason to deny 4 watts on non-adjacent channels, unless there is a conspiracy against WISPs. Its also possible that the FCC got confused by WISPA's message, misinterpretting that we wanted low power in unlicensed. The FCC left the door open for further comment on whether higher power licensed should be allowed in rural areas. At this point, I think it will end up being to WISP's best interest to jump back on the Unlicensed bandwagon, where there is FCC support, and lobby for 4watts. But I'm gonna stop talking, as I'm getting all worked up, before I have all the facts posted to the public tommorrow. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:16 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looks like we didn't win I can make do with 4 watts EIRP if that is what we end up with. If the is the only thing we didn't get, I would say we pitched a shutout. - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 7:13 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looks like we didn't win Useful power levels in the whitespaces. B UT, we've not seen the actual rules from the FCC yet. It's entirely possible that the rules will be better than what's being reported so far. marlon - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 5:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looks like we didn't win What exactly didn't we win? - Original Message - From: Charles Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 5:08 PM Subject: [WISPA] Looks like we didn't win http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/110408-fcc-whilte-spaces.html :( 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] Theoretical TVWS coverage
I chose -80 because in current operations, anything less isn't really utilizing the available spectrum. I try to engineer all of my links for full modulation. Anything less is a waste. I know -80 isn't full modulation, but it's not far away. Perhaps with more clean spectrum, receivers will be better, but the same was said about 3650 and that hasn't materialized. When browsing around on Channel Master's site that one of their DACs required -83 to -5 dBm with a SNR of 15 dB to operate. If TVWS devices are supposed to receive 30 dB below TV, then we should be able to receive signals that are -113 dBm. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:20 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage I would imagine you will be able to have receive signals down to almost -95 or -98 dBm. Remember this should be relatively clean spectrum (and hopefully stay that way). According to Sascha the current white space devices that were in testing were supposed to receive signals 30 db below the signal required to receive a DTV signal. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 AM To: WISPA List Subject: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage Based on TV antenna, it looks like the largest gain CPE will be around 10 dB for all but the lowest of frequencies. I just ran a Radio Mobile coverage area using a guesstimate at a white spaces system... EIRP of 20 dBm, 16 dBi sector, 10 dBi CPE, -80 dBm minimum allowed receive. The range wasn't much more than 2 miles in flat country land. With those same measurements with a 36 dBm EIRP, we have 10 miles, but terrain comes more into play here. For the extreme rural areas, this is where tower height comes into play. For everyone else, this is your foliage beater. In these areas we still need small cells for bandwidth capacity and interference rejection. Remember, the only signal levels mentioned were 40 mw for personal portable devices. Anything else is just speculation at this point. They may very well give fixed stations 4 W as they do in all other unlicensed bands. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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/ 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] FCC Adopts Rules For Unlicensed Use of Television White Spaces.
11/4/08 FCC Adopts Rules For Unlicensed Use of Television White Spaces. News Release: Word | Acrobat Martin Statement: Word | Acrobat Copps Statement: Word | Acrobat Adelstein Statement: Word | Acrobat Tate Statement: Word | Acrobat McDowell Statement: Word | Acrobat -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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/
Re: [WISPA] SR5 vs. XR5
That's because of the Atheros chipset at heart. The SR and CM9 cards use the 5004 chipset, the XR and other radios such as the R52 use the 5006 chipset. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: cw [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 6:59 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] SR5 vs. XR5 It's not the output power that differentiates SR radios from XR radios. We got better quality links from 100mW CM9s than SR cards. The XR radios are finer grained and hear better. Mario Pommier wrote: what is the output of those cards? the xr5 are 600mW aren't they? aren't the sr5 400mW? *600mW (28dBm) 400mW (26dBm)* the posted results seem accurate. Mario Mike Hammett wrote: The XR radios listen better than the SR radios do. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Scott Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 2:55 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] SR5 vs. XR5 What I have seen is not so much an improvement in the receive db reading as in the CCQ. I don't remember how much it changed, but I have a couple of links that were having issues with intermittent drops that went away with the XR5 cards. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, It's a 2 hour drive (each way) and requires taking the link down (again). I have XR5 cards sitting on my desk... but if I'm only going to see 1db of improvement, it's not worth 5 hours of time. ;) Travis Microserv D. Ryan Spott wrote: You could just toss the cards in there and do a quick configure. $216 for the parts should be easy to show on the books. :) ryan Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, Can anyone provide any real-world experience where they replaced SR5 cards with XR5 cards on a point to point link? We have a 15 mile shot (using MT) that is just _barely_ line of site enough to establish a link. I am just wondering how much increase in signal we would see by switching cards? thanks, Travis Microserv 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 incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.6/1765 - Release Date: 11/3/2008 4:59 PM -- 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman
Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage
I could see 16 dB sectors. Of course they will be large, but that's what it takes at these frequencies. We'll have antennas the same size as the broadcast TV antennas are now (I've seen some over 40' tall). Hopefully a manufacturer can work something out with regards to not having to have 4x 40' sectors on a tower to provide the needed coverage... that could result in some tasty rates. I don't think the number of wifi devices we see is a useful argument. Their response is 3.65 and 5.4 GHz... plenty of new space and no wifi devices. We need to stress the penetration abilities and the need for copious amounts of spectrum that has these penetration abilities. I believe these lower frequencies will help fill in coverage gaps within any given range. We may not have any more range with TVWS vs. existing bands with equal EIRP because of smaller antenna requirements, but buildings and trees no longer make that coverage spotty. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:50 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage Hmmm Just for fun I ran the numbers at 600mhz. 20 dB tx from the radio, 16dB tx antenna (probably not at all reasonable due to size and small 50ish* coverage) to a 10 dB cpe antenna. -80 at 50 miles! Same thing with an 8dB (say omni) would be 20 miles at -80. The sad part though? We can do that with today's wifi gear! 20 miles is pretty easy in the open. Now lets run this at the WISPA 20 WATT level. That's 43dB eirp. So, 35dB tx power and 8dB omni to 10dB cpe antenna. I get -80 at 100 miles! Now we're talkin! The next question that has to be answered. What is the receive signal of the average TV set these days? What does it need to be able to pick up a signal? We need to know that number if we're to come up with a non interfering OOB level that we can suggest to the FCC. This is why people need to join wispa. We have to fight this fight. They are still looking at what to do with us it sounds like. We have to be ready to go back there again. We need to show them pictures of our areas, demographics, screen shots of all of the wifi devices we pick up at our ap's. etc. etc. etc. Pretty cool. marlon - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:12 AM Subject: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage Based on TV antenna, it looks like the largest gain CPE will be around 10 dB for all but the lowest of frequencies. I just ran a Radio Mobile coverage area using a guesstimate at a white spaces system... EIRP of 20 dBm, 16 dBi sector, 10 dBi CPE, -80 dBm minimum allowed receive. The range wasn't much more than 2 miles in flat country land. With those same measurements with a 36 dBm EIRP, we have 10 miles, but terrain comes more into play here. For the extreme rural areas, this is where tower height comes into play. For everyone else, this is your foliage beater. In these areas we still need small cells for bandwidth capacity and interference rejection. Remember, the only signal levels mentioned were 40 mw for personal portable devices. Anything else is just speculation at this point. They may very well give fixed stations 4 W as they do in all other unlicensed bands. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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/ 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] standoffs
We make and sell the aluminum ones. Hit me off list if you need more info. Thanks, Mike Goicoechea -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] standoffs Hi, Where is everyone getting metal standoffs for mounting Routerboards on the backplates? We would prefer metal ones, with nuts on the back and then machine threaded screws. Or, if there is something better, let me know. thanks, Travis Microserv 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 incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1762 - Release Date: 11/4/2008 9:38 PM 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] Theoretical TVWS coverage
Oh, I don't argue against the fact that there is signal present and can interfere with other systems beyond what I consider usable. I was just saying I don't think we're going to be able to efficiently have systems that go 50 miles. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:20 PM To: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage That's my point, the noise will be much lower in these bands if things are deployed in a sane way. Wimax gear has receive sensitivity in the -93 to -98 range and from the reports I have heard, works very well at those levels. While a WISP may be trying to set a network up for max modulation, the FCC will look at the contour a whitespace station creates in a much different way. It will be based on the RF energy it creates, not the signal margin above the receiver threshold needed to achieve the better modulation rate. If you map a realistic footprint based on a signal level down as low as -98, that might be closer to the contour they will create in their geolocation database. This contour will be the one they use to see if you will encroach on any TV contour or other protected/semi protected users of the spectrum. The WISP operator will not get to determine the contour limits based on their own desired modulation rate. I was saying that you should be able to use the -90 number in your mapping to get a more realistic sense of where the signal will be going and what size polygon you might have to deal with as you register it in a geolocation database. Remember, even though you may not agree that a particular signal level is adequate for your purposes at a certain level, the signal that still remains on the air at the lower levels, will be an interfering/undesired signal to all other systems. The FCC is charged with managing the total signal emitted, it's affects over distance, and the other users of the spectrum. They have the big picture to look at, while as a WISP it can be easy to overlook those other factors. I am not sure what the signal level will be that the FCC determines must be protected for TV receivers, but whatever that number is you would be wise to do RF plots that show signal down to that level. It may not be useable as a data network but it will certainly be able to bother TV reception at that level. WISP use of whitespaces will be a secondary use to LICENSED users of the band. And homeowners with off air TV reception will be considered licensed in this case. That is a different mindset from what most are used to. It will create the need for different thinking when planning a network. This is not bad news, just a new and different way to think about your RF planning. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage I would say that -90 should be a safe signal level to use and still have good modulation rates. I'm a little confused on that statement. With our Aperto live testing a few years back (pre-wimax), the best modulation we could get was qam16 at the -85 levels. And that was before considering the 25db SNR required above the noise. What good is sensitivity, if the noise ends up being higher than the sensitivity? Sure TV broadcasters shot for -120, but thats one direction broadcasting, with no expense cut for technology. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:46 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage Obviously we are still speculating here because the rules are certainly not clear. With technology development and the results I am hearing from those who are using WiMax equipment, I would say that -90 should be a safe signal level to use and still have good modulation rates. To assume TVWS will always get full modulation and then try to also claim that it is the most cost affective way to reach the low population density areas will be difficult. Site footprints have to be looked at lowest modulation rates because that RF signal is still out there. It is important to look at how far that signal will still be traveling even though you can't achieve full rates. The transmitted carrier will still be out there as part of the contour for your base and must be considered in the process of registration. Your footprint will still be very large even though you don't prefer to operate at the slower rates, which for others
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
I agree somewhat on the licensed gear needing to step it up a bit. Chuck refers to needing 100 MHz (a pair of 50 MHz channels) to do a licensed link, and I've never seen one do more than 600 mbit after you add on a whole bunch more IDU\ODU combinations on a single antenna. Orthogon does 300 mbit in 30 MHz, end of story. Well, I guess the past year has introduced some more higher speed gear, but still not as spectrally efficient as UL gear that has been out there for a few years. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:02 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point? No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum due to the barrier to entry. Telco's (like Chuck) use 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support the dishes. Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build towers, its $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of whether its approved. Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get the right to build a tower, IF it occurs. Didn't AtT almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers? Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, that should be better available to smaller companies that don't build/own the actual towers. It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an antenna approval. I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the larger dishes... Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a 4ft dish so it was allowed to be used for a primary license. However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft2ft dishes that did NOT meet the same radiating charateristic were still allowed approval, on a secondary basis. . so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules. But relaxing the rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the spectrum more doesn't make sense to me. Ok, lets turn that logic around, to be fair. So you are saying that all 5.x Ghz unlicensed PtP radios should be required to use 6ft dishes, so spectrum is not wasted? What makes 6Ghz more special than 5.xGhz? From the WISP perspective though, 6GHz is out of range. Mesa needed to do a few links, but couldn't handle the 6 foot dish requirement so we ended up not deploying the links or doing smaller hops. Yep, but should it be? The fact that its hard to find a free channel is irrelevent. The fact is there are many areas where there is free spectrum, and its a waste to horde that spectrum unnecessarilly. These antenna limits were made YEARS ago when technology was no where near as advanced. Its time to use higher modulations, smaller channels, lower power, and better sensitivity, to allow more use of the band in my opinion. I agree this spectrum is set aside for Licensed interference-free PTP backhaul spectrum, so Providers can rely on it for the prupose. But I argue whether it is trully saturated, and most efficiently used. FiberTower proved a need, and proved no harm to existing links in place. I believe that any link deploed today, deserves the protection that it was promised when it was licesned to the licensee. But I see no reason that new Licensee shouldn't be allowed to have a smaller antenna, where its feasible, to enable better use of vacant spectrum. I'm in no way suggesting small 1ft dishes. I'm suggesting 3-4ft dishes. 4ft dishes still have very narrow beamwidths at 6Ghz, and very spectrum preservation conscious. There is a huge difference between cosmetic and windload limits of 4ft versus 6ft dishes. Allowing 4ft, would also put the spectrum within the grasp of many many needy WISPs. What harms the industry more? Fibertowers asking for prime PtMP Whitespace spectrum for rural backhaul at 25 degree beamwidths minimum? or Shrinking the 6ghz antenna size to 3-4ft and going from a 1deg to 2 degree beamwidth? Tom DeReggi Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Ok, that opens up a useful conversation. Why is that? 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed. I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
I don't understand why ATPC isn't a regulatory requirement for all two-way communications. It just makes sense. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:25 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... I've always liked the idea of allowing smaller antennas on systems that have ATPC. That would allow for much smaller fade margins. By using lower power levels I think that there would be even less stray signal than there is with 6' dishes. Especially on the back side of the links. marlon - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:24 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... There is a ton of licensed 6 GHz systems already deployed. They make you use a larger antenna so the beamwidth is narrower. I allows more frequency reuse due to lower sidelobes and less footprint. We are in a rural area and sometimes they have a hard time finding us a pair of 50 MHz channels to use @ 6 GHz. The propagation characteristics are much better for our 60 mile hops. Not sure we could even get it to work at 18 GHz, possibly 11. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Ok, that opens up a useful conversation. Why is that? 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed. I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not translating to larger deployment. I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft dishes. So why is the same not achievalbe with 6Ghz, if allowed a 3ft antennas? Is the 1 degree really going to make that much of a difference? Is 6 Mhz really that much more deployed and saturated? And why not do it under the same premise as 11Ghz, where the smaller antenna is secondary and must defer to the primary lciesne of the larger size antenna? The fact is 6Ghz equipment is on the shelf, and there is unused spectrum available, I'd love to be able to use it. I don;t think I have one tower or property owner that would allow a 6ft antenna to be installed. 6ft requirement is effectively creating a huge barrier to entry. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... As much as I'd love to be able to use smaller antennas than 6' with 6GHz that is a real bad idea. It's hard enough finding an available 6GHz freq pair in some areas today. Allowing smaller antennas would likely mean even fewer available freq pairs. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Yes. A bettter use of time and spectrum is to fight for smaller antennas to be allowed on 6Ghz. Sorta like what was jsut done to 11Ghz. The 6ft requirement is a preventer for many. But that argument doesn;t hold for Whitespace as Whitespace antennas would be bigger.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... I can't understand why there's all this discussion of PtP... aren't there already MANY bands established for PtP, including some (6 GHz) that have quite some range to them? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:27 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Butch, Then, the music turned to noise You hit the nail right on the head, with your comment. They talked up broadband, but then gave us Personal portable instead, and said, but we really need to consider PTP, CLECs and Carriers are also a very important part of broadband delivery.. The problem
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
I'm not saying use a 6 GHz licensed radio on an Orthogon, but make some steps towards improving spectral efficiency. For the cost of licensed radios, you'd think they'd put some money into RD. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:41 AM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Hello Mike, Apples and oranges. You cannot compare UL best effort gear to carrier class licensed gear. Two different worlds...both clearly have their place. Chuck touches on this in another post. While I've never personally deployed an Orthogon radio (only stood by looking over another's shoulder) I'm certain it will not compare in availability at 300Mbps to a licensed link. That's assuming the Orthogon can actually even produce 300Mbps FDX. Is this déjà vu? Haven't we already gone down this road with UL vs. licensed? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:04 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... I agree somewhat on the licensed gear needing to step it up a bit. Chuck refers to needing 100 MHz (a pair of 50 MHz channels) to do a licensed link, and I've never seen one do more than 600 mbit after you add on a whole bunch more IDU\ODU combinations on a single antenna. Orthogon does 300 mbit in 30 MHz, end of story. Well, I guess the past year has introduced some more higher speed gear, but still not as spectrally efficient as UL gear that has been out there for a few years. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:02 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point? No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum due to the barrier to entry. Telco's (like Chuck) use 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support the dishes. Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build towers, its $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of whether its approved. Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get the right to build a tower, IF it occurs. Didn't AtT almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers? Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, that should be better available to smaller companies that don't build/own the actual towers. It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an antenna approval. I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the larger dishes... Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a 4ft dish so it was allowed to be used for a primary license. However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft2ft dishes that did NOT meet the same radiating charateristic were still allowed approval, on a secondary basis. . so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules. But relaxing the rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the spectrum more doesn't make sense to me. Ok, lets turn that logic around, to be fair. So you are saying that all 5.x Ghz unlicensed PtP radios should be required to use 6ft dishes, so spectrum is not wasted? What makes 6Ghz more special than 5.xGhz? From the WISP perspective though, 6GHz is out of range. Mesa needed to do a few links, but couldn't handle the 6 foot dish requirement so we ended up not deploying the links or doing smaller hops. Yep, but should it be? The fact that its hard to find a free channel is irrelevent. The fact is there are many areas where there is free spectrum, and its a waste to horde that spectrum unnecessarilly. These antenna limits were made YEARS ago when technology was no where near as advanced. Its time to use higher modulations, smaller channels, lower power, and better sensitivity, to allow more use of the band in my opinion. I agree this spectrum is set aside for Licensed interference-free PTP backhaul spectrum, so Providers can rely on it for the prupose. But I argue whether it is trully saturated, and most efficiently used. FiberTower proved a need, and proved no harm to existing links in place. I believe that any link deploed today, deserves the protection
Re: [WISPA] 1.9ghz?
*nods* DECT is a cordless phone protocol that operates in its own band. It's just recently starting to catch on here in the states, but it has been quite popular in Europe. It's very advanced too... you can have repeaters, multiple APs, etc kinda like WIFI, but for phones. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 5:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] 1.9ghz? Hi, I wasn't aware you could get a cordless phone that operates in 1.9ghz??? Uniden DECT2080-2 shows it operates in the interference free cordless frequency. Travis Microserv 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] Stand offs for a water tower question...
That would have been Larry or George from CBCast. Well, Larry has sold the company, but he still knows a thing or two. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 11:18 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Stand offs for a water tower question... I remember a while back somebody showed a very nice design of a collar that went around the hatch neck. -RickG On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 12:01 PM, St. Louis Broadband [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have two water towers that will need 4 to 5 antenna mounts. The water towers are both the same. They are approximately 120' with a climbing tube and a bulb at the top. There are no side rails. The hatch opens to the bulb. How do you attach antennas??? Is welding standoffs the best practice? Any ideas on basic costs? Here is a pic of one of the towers: http://stlbroadband.com/h20.html Also this was a method mentioned on another thread: http://www.metal-cable.com/page13.html These guys are nice but $3k apiece. I am thinking that if you went that route that you could get three for each tower and ad a mounting pipe between each creating a triangle and mount to that. I am not sure how long they would maintain their power for this application, but if you had to move your network these come along versus a welded situation. Thanks, Victoria 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] Vista VPN Question
Is there a way to setup Vista so that only certain subnets are routed over a VPN link? It seems silly that a customer with a 16 meg Comcast connection pushes all Internet traffic through the office's 2/2 connection. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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/
