Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP

[Chuck McCown]

Yep

From: George Skorup 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 6:18 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP

2GHz to light?


On 4/15/2016 2:21 PM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:

  At any frequency.

  From: Josh Luthman 
  Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 12:30 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP

  At 100 GHz?


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

  On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:24 PM,  wrote:

Open waveguides have about 10 dB gain and about a 50 degree pattern.  

From: Josh Reynolds 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 10:47 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP

I like the horn design because they're very clean as far as antenna 
coverage goes, and they're also good for covering both close in customers as 
well as several miles out. Much better than a standard sector.

Also they're small "A F", but solidly built. Low wind load means you can 
put more of them on a micropop 25G.

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

  People seem to forget that gain is inversely proportional to coverage 
area. A sector that moves the vertical beamwidth from 4 degrees to 90 degrees 
will have a very detrimental effect on gain.

  That said, the lack of gain everywhere outside of the intended area is 
non-existent, meaning much lower noise.




  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions

  Midwest Internet Exchange

  The Brothers WISP






--

  From: "Josh Reynolds" 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 11:32:11 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP 


  They're great for 802.11ac style micropops

  Good vertical coverage though, much better than a sector. Clean
  beamwidth / edges.

  On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Josh Luthman
   wrote:
  > It's another option anyway =)
  >
  > I'm kind of liking the horn antenna, but the gain is low.  A 90* is only
  > 10dbi but a 40* is 16dbi.  Or the 50* at 14dbi.
  >
  >
  > Josh Luthman
  > Office: 937-552-2340
  > Direct: 937-552-2343
  > 1100 Wayne St
  > Suite 1337
  > Troy, OH 45373
  >
  > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Jeremy  wrote:
  >>
  >> Nevermind, I missed the "short of buying a connectorized AP" part.  
Also,
  >> these are small in physical size, but not so much in beamwidth.
  >>
  >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Jeremy  
wrote:
  >>>
  >>> AM-M-V5G-TI
  >>>
  >>>
  >>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Gino Villarini 
  >>> wrote:
  
   ebay is your friend
  
   On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Gino Villarini 

   wrote:
  >
  > blessed that you can use 40 mhz...
  >
  > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Adam Moffett 
  > wrote:
  >>
  >> Those only have 100mbps ethernet, correct?  On a 40mhz channel they
  >> can do 180mbps+ aggregate which is why I've been using the 
Force110 for the
  >> little sites.
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >> On 4/15/2016 11:04 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
  >>
  >> If you dont need gps syc, just do a Epmp 1000 integrated...
  >>
  >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Josh Luthman
  >>  wrote:
  >>>
  >>> Force 180.  It's more gain, very narrow azimuth (great for a CPE).
  >>> It's the same thing turned 90*.
  >>>
  >>>
  >>> Josh Luthman
  >>> Office: 937-552-2340
  >>> Direct: 937-552-2343
  >>> 1100 Wayne St
  >>> Suite 1337
  >>> Troy, OH 45373
  >>>
  >>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Brian Sullivan
  >>>  wrote:
  
   I guess I fell asleep at the ePMP wheel, why would they EOL 
these?
  
   On 4/14/2016 5:30 PM, George Skorup wrote:
  >
  > We bought a bunch of integrated 5GHz radios and keep them in a 
safe
  > place for this very reason.
  >
  > On 4/14/2016 5:28 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
  >>
  >> Does anyone have a suggestion for a small AP antenna?  
Previously
  >> with Ubnt we would do an NSM5.  This would give us 45*.  The 
use case is
  >> just to service a few homes around the corner from the trees.
  >>
  >> The original integrated radios are 30* but they're EOLed
  
  

Re: [AFMUG] RF Elements Symmetrical Horns vs Traditional Sectors

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

I like them even more because like everything, we pushed it too far, we
decided on epmp for offloading the short LOS customers. was supposed to be
a 2 mile limit with an assumption wed push it to 4. with the cambium
sectors we are consistently hitting 6-8 miles and sidelobing the shit out
of it, good for up front offloading, but in the long term we are killing
the AP, and the in town customers are suffering because theyre under the
pattern, move to these, get our cheating reeled in and better performance
on the short shots with the 90s and come back in with the 30s for the
further customers, EPMP is so cheap that its cost effective to put up one
of these 30s for a single customer knowing we will eventually get some
more, but we get to target locations and minimize unnecessary rf pollution.
Plus, its great PR when you do an NLOS but say "let us see what we can do"
and we can call them back later that day after we make the decision and
tell them "hey, we love you, we are so awesome and pretty that we will go
hang a whole new access point just for you, because we like you and we have
big junk. This tiny form factor is such that we could toss a roll of cable
in the van and hang the thing that day and maybe even make it back in the
afternoon to the customer.


all assuming they actually work as advertised


On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 12:08 AM, Stefan Englhardt  wrote:

> If your sectors are crowded this is a good additional antenna to offload
> some nearby customers. Small compared to a sector good fb ratio and sharp
> edges to reduce interference. 30 degree makes most sense. They are built
> solid compared to other rf elements antennas.
>
>
>  Ursprüngliche Nachricht 
> Von: Josh Reynolds 
> Datum: 16.04.2016 03:35 (GMT+01:00)
> An: af@afmug.com
> Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] RF Elements Symmetrical Horns vs Traditional Sectors
>
>


-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] RF Elements Symmetrical Horns vs Traditional Sectors

[Stefan Englhardt]

If your sectors are crowded this is a good additional antenna to offload some 
nearby customers. Small compared to a sector good fb ratio and sharp edges to 
reduce interference. 30 degree makes most sense. They are built solid compared 
to other rf elements antennas.

 Ursprüngliche Nachricht 
Von: Josh Reynolds  
Datum: 16.04.2016  03:35  (GMT+01:00) 
An: af@afmug.com 
Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] RF Elements Symmetrical Horns vs Traditional Sectors 

Re: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?

[Mathew Howard]

That sounds perfect!

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:53 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You want to be head of the department of bribery and skullduggery? Im
> going to need a good man in that spot, need to get set up to take payments
> from cash to bitcoin to farmers daughters. Its all about ensuring a fluid
> customer experience
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
>> That should do it. selling the plan to the legislative branch should be
>> easy enough, just offer them a cut.
>>
>> I'd also like to get in early and request a cabinet position... I don't
>> need a cut of the profits, just a job that isn't to much work but has
>> plenty of opportunities for accepting bribes.
>> On Apr 15, 2016 5:03 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <
>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Im legalizing pot, therefore i will win
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Adam Moffett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Since your kleptocracy platform won't be popular, what story will you
>>> tell in order to get elected?
>>>
>>> How will you sell your plan to the legislative branch who will actually
>>> have to make it law?
>>>
>>> I just don't know if this plan has been thought through very thoroughly.
>>> https://youtu.be/93B072j-E3I?t=8
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/15/2016 12:55 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote:
>>>
>>> I want to get in first and ask to be VP with a cut of the profits...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm 
>>> *Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2016 11:52 AM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?
>>>
>>> Thats just stupid. When Im president, I will just do away with that
>>> funny business. Im still going to raise taxes to 90 percent, but im not
>>> redistributing that to anybody but me.
>>>
>>> I dont know much about the cable tv industry or its actual
>>> infrastructure obviously
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Josh Reynolds < 
>>> j...@kyneticwifi.com> wrote:
>>>
 It IS delivered to the customer via the ISP, but it's encrypted due to
 content / rebroadcast rights blah blah blah

 On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:44 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
  wrote:
 > Well, I learned something. I just assume all content was only
 delivered to
 > the service provider, and then the service provider handed it to the
 > consumer via their delivery infrastructure. That would make more
 sense to
 > me.
 >
 >
 > I just never saw entertainment (internet included) as being something
 worthy
 > of any federal attention
 >
 > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Josh Reynolds 
 > wrote:
 >>
 >> It's a bit of a mess really.
 >>
 >> You have inbound content feeds or peering, which is often encrypted.
 >> This hits their different "content servers" in your network that you
 >> often have no control over. A customer ONT has a list of channels and
 >> encryption keys programmed into it, and it sends off a bunch of
 >> multicast join requests for the content to these content servers. The
 >> content is end-end encrypted. You're kind of a dumb pipe in this
 >> scenario.
 >>
 >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:34 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
 >>
 >>  wrote:
 >> > maybe i misunderstand how this works, I assumed the service
 provider
 >> > gets
 >> > the content, however they get the content, then delivers the
 content on
 >> > their own system to the set top box. Are you saying the content
 provider
 >> > delivers the content directly to the consumer set top box
 currently just
 >> > transiting the service provider network?
 >> >
 >> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Josh Reynolds <
 j...@kyneticwifi.com>
 >> > wrote:
 >> >>
 >> >> I have no idea what you just said.
 >> >>
 >> >> Currently, content providers are using proprietary DRM (in many
 cases)
 >> >> to send content feeds.
 >> >>
 >> >> For instance, we have 5 content providers and our own sat farm
 now.
 >> >> Each one has a different demarc box for encryption and keys, and
 we
 >> >> have to manage keys for content for each user and each set top.
 It's a
 >> >> fucking nightmare. We also are limited to a handful of set tops
 that
 >> >> will work with their systems.
 >> >>
 >> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:24 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
 >> >>  wrote:
 >> >> > Forcing providers from using proprietary technology on their
 >> >> > infrastructure
 >> >> > to maximize performance of their service into hammering a
 square peg
 >> >> > into a
 >> >> > round hole so everybody has a square peg will not turn out
 well. It
 >> >> > will
 >> >> 

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

ther may be ftc regulations that would create a criminal liability for
processors allowing kiting

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Tyson @ Internet Communications Inc (ICI) <
t...@franklinisp.net> wrote:

> My 2 cents:
>
> Who cares! The merchant gets their damn money.  Unless you have some kind
> of charge back history, it's stupid.   The only thing I will say, as an
> outsider, if you did it for the rewards perk...why?
>
> Doesn't the reward get off set by the merchant fees?  It's a wash.
>
> If the intent was for something else, it's really none of their business.
> They make money.
>
> Disclaimer:  I don't use them
>
> *Tyson Burris, President*
>  *Internet Communications Inc.*
>  *739 Commerce Dr.*
>  *Franklin, IN 46131*
>
> *317-738-0320 <317-738-0320> Daytime #*
> *317-412-1540 <317-412-1540> Cell/Direct #*
> *Online: **www.surfici.net*
>
>
>
> Forgive the brevity, the typos and my fat fingers!
>
> On Apr 15, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Scott Vander Dussen 
> wrote:
>
> I’ve received a few off-list request for my story and a couple here
> on-list.  I don’t mind sharing, I just didn’t want to come out with a rant
> about IPPay because that wasn’t my goal.  I share this experience because I
> really value this list and the contributions made by all you wonderful
> people.  Few things have shaped my business and been as valuable of a
> resource as this list (beginning as Part-15.org  to
> current), so thank you everyone!  (:  Part of that awesomeness is sometimes
> sharing the less than stellar experiences we face, here’s mine with IP Pay.
>
>
>
> 1. I wanted to make a purchase that was not eligible for a CC payment and
> get the cash back rewards
>
>
>
> 2. I contacted Cap1 and asked if I could use one of those blank “courtesy
> checks” they send out to write to myself and basically get a cash advance
> plus then get the cash back rewards. They said no problem, but the checks
> are exempt from cash back rewards.
>
>
>
> 3. I asked if I as a business could run my own card into my own bank
> account for the cash rewards.  She said no problem, I asked her to research
> the Cap 1 Visa ToS to verify, she did and again no problem.  I then asked
> her to triple verify by confirming with her supervisor, and again no
> problem.  They said if you have that resource to process your own card and
> you’re paying your minimum balances etc. it’s a non-issue.
>
>
>
> 4. I researched “Credit Card Kiting” which is the process of paying a
> credit card balance with another credit card- the practice is only a
> problem when there is deception involved.  Even the Wikipedia article
> demonstrates its OK when there is not deception.  And this isn’t even
> kiting, it’s just processing a credit card for cash in the bank.
>
>
>
> 5. We process a card for $20k
>
>
>
> 6. Tanya Krapil from IPPay halts the transaction,  holds the funds and
> emails me asking if it’s legit.  (lost a whole day of expected funds
> because of this)
>
>
>
> 7. I reply it’s legit.
>
>
>
> 8. Tayan demands invoices and “documentation” before she will release the
> funds.
>
>
>
> 9. I reply: “We don't share our invoices with parties not involved with
> the transaction, that is not only a breach of confidentiality but
> inappropriate for you to ask. While I can appreciate your concern for fraud
> I have, as the CEO of Velociter, already confirmed the legitimacy of this
> transaction. If at this time you are cause further delays in processing
> this transaction then I will consider your actions as unreasonable
> non-performance and a termination of our long standing business
> relationship.”
>
>
>
> 10. Tayna the replies that she will process this transaction.
>
>
>
> 11. Subsequently Tayna spoke telephonically with other staff and
> determined the card was employee owned.  Tayna said she’d process the
> payment but it isn’t a kosher practice.
>
>
>
> 12. Tayna then emails me to tell me just kidding, she’s not going to
> process the payment after all. (losing yet another day of expected funds)
>
>
>
> My grief is that on a $20k tag Tayna doesn’t bother to pick up the phone
> and call, just arbitrarily held the funds and sent an email.  Then she said
> two times that she would indeed process the payment only to then change her
> mind later.  It’s horrible customer service to say one thing and then not
> honor it, even if you made a mistake.  I’m particularly bothered by her
> asking for “invoices and documentation” to support the charge; the US in
> particular is getting so used to sacrificing our privacy and freedoms.
> Tayna is demanding I send over information that completely out of her
> sphere of concern.
>
>
>
> Tayna is citing that it’s a Visa policy not process your own card, but has
> provided no documentation to support that.  There is no deception involved,
> we called and pre-authorized the transaction with Cap1 on a recorded call
> and Cap1 gave their blessing.  I contract with IPPay to process the CC
> cards I 

Re: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

You want to be head of the department of bribery and skullduggery? Im going
to need a good man in that spot, need to get set up to take payments from
cash to bitcoin to farmers daughters. Its all about ensuring a fluid
customer experience

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Mathew Howard  wrote:

> That should do it. selling the plan to the legislative branch should be
> easy enough, just offer them a cut.
>
> I'd also like to get in early and request a cabinet position... I don't
> need a cut of the profits, just a job that isn't to much work but has
> plenty of opportunities for accepting bribes.
> On Apr 15, 2016 5:03 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <
> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Im legalizing pot, therefore i will win
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Adam Moffett 
> wrote:
>
>> Since your kleptocracy platform won't be popular, what story will you
>> tell in order to get elected?
>>
>> How will you sell your plan to the legislative branch who will actually
>> have to make it law?
>>
>> I just don't know if this plan has been thought through very thoroughly.
>> https://youtu.be/93B072j-E3I?t=8
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/15/2016 12:55 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote:
>>
>> I want to get in first and ask to be VP with a cut of the profits...
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm 
>> *Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2016 11:52 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?
>>
>> Thats just stupid. When Im president, I will just do away with that funny
>> business. Im still going to raise taxes to 90 percent, but im not
>> redistributing that to anybody but me.
>>
>> I dont know much about the cable tv industry or its actual infrastructure
>> obviously
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Josh Reynolds < 
>> j...@kyneticwifi.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It IS delivered to the customer via the ISP, but it's encrypted due to
>>> content / rebroadcast rights blah blah blah
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:44 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
>>>  wrote:
>>> > Well, I learned something. I just assume all content was only
>>> delivered to
>>> > the service provider, and then the service provider handed it to the
>>> > consumer via their delivery infrastructure. That would make more sense
>>> to
>>> > me.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I just never saw entertainment (internet included) as being something
>>> worthy
>>> > of any federal attention
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Josh Reynolds 
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> It's a bit of a mess really.
>>> >>
>>> >> You have inbound content feeds or peering, which is often encrypted.
>>> >> This hits their different "content servers" in your network that you
>>> >> often have no control over. A customer ONT has a list of channels and
>>> >> encryption keys programmed into it, and it sends off a bunch of
>>> >> multicast join requests for the content to these content servers. The
>>> >> content is end-end encrypted. You're kind of a dumb pipe in this
>>> >> scenario.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:34 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
>>> >>
>>> >>  wrote:
>>> >> > maybe i misunderstand how this works, I assumed the service provider
>>> >> > gets
>>> >> > the content, however they get the content, then delivers the
>>> content on
>>> >> > their own system to the set top box. Are you saying the content
>>> provider
>>> >> > delivers the content directly to the consumer set top box currently
>>> just
>>> >> > transiting the service provider network?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Josh Reynolds <
>>> j...@kyneticwifi.com>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I have no idea what you just said.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Currently, content providers are using proprietary DRM (in many
>>> cases)
>>> >> >> to send content feeds.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> For instance, we have 5 content providers and our own sat farm now.
>>> >> >> Each one has a different demarc box for encryption and keys, and we
>>> >> >> have to manage keys for content for each user and each set top.
>>> It's a
>>> >> >> fucking nightmare. We also are limited to a handful of set tops
>>> that
>>> >> >> will work with their systems.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:24 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
>>> >> >>  wrote:
>>> >> >> > Forcing providers from using proprietary technology on their
>>> >> >> > infrastructure
>>> >> >> > to maximize performance of their service into hammering a square
>>> peg
>>> >> >> > into a
>>> >> >> > round hole so everybody has a square peg will not turn out well.
>>> It
>>> >> >> > will
>>> >> >> > however ensure that digital theft becomes a much simpler
>>> process, so
>>> >> >> > thats
>>> >> >> > always good.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:16 AM,  wrote:
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> If you actually read the FCC document, I 

Re: [AFMUG] RF Elements Symmetrical Horns vs Traditional Sectors

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

these will be the bees knees for hitting the near customers on epmp

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Mathew Howard  wrote:

> Yes... and Ubiquiti sectors certainly don't have the best F/B ratio. But a
> cleaner pattern doesn't necessarily mean it's going to perform better... in
> some (maybe even most) cases, yes, in other cases, no.
> On Apr 15, 2016 8:55 PM, "Josh Reynolds"  wrote:
>
>> F/B is normally pretty bad on most sectors. Cleaner on horns. Panels
>> being worse in every way than either horn or sector.
>> On Apr 15, 2016 8:52 PM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:
>>
>>> It is important to note how sloppy a sector is in the gain it achieves.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Mathew Howard" 
>>> *To: *"af" 
>>> *Sent: *Friday, April 15, 2016 8:47:40 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] RF Elements Symmetrical Horns vs Traditional
>>> Sectors
>>>
>>> I imagine it'll depend on how you're measuring performance. If larger
>>> vertical beamwidth and cleaner edges are important in your deployment, it's
>>> going to perform better... If you're doing longer distance, lower density
>>> shots where you want as much gain as possible, and vertical beamwidth isn't
>>> important, the 20db sector is most likely going to work better.
>>> On Apr 15, 2016 8:35 PM, "Josh Reynolds"  wrote:
>>>
 Marketing, for one.

 That said, it depends on your deployment needs.

 A horn will have a much larger vertical beamwidtg and cleaner edges,
 but this is at the cost of gain.

 OTOH, the larger the gain, the larger the antenna.

 This is all just general antenna stuff, is there some metric or
 reasoning you're looking for in particular? It's all mostly relative.
 On Apr 15, 2016 8:33 PM, "Keefe John"  wrote:

> So RF Elements claims their 90 degree 10 dbi symmetrical horn performs
> better than a traditional UBNT 90 degree 20 dbi sector. How and why?
>
> Keefe
>

>>>


-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] RF Elements Symmetrical Horns vs Traditional Sectors

[Mathew Howard]

Yes... and Ubiquiti sectors certainly don't have the best F/B ratio. But a
cleaner pattern doesn't necessarily mean it's going to perform better... in
some (maybe even most) cases, yes, in other cases, no.
On Apr 15, 2016 8:55 PM, "Josh Reynolds"  wrote:

> F/B is normally pretty bad on most sectors. Cleaner on horns. Panels being
> worse in every way than either horn or sector.
> On Apr 15, 2016 8:52 PM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:
>
>> It is important to note how sloppy a sector is in the gain it achieves.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Mathew Howard" 
>> *To: *"af" 
>> *Sent: *Friday, April 15, 2016 8:47:40 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] RF Elements Symmetrical Horns vs Traditional
>> Sectors
>>
>> I imagine it'll depend on how you're measuring performance. If larger
>> vertical beamwidth and cleaner edges are important in your deployment, it's
>> going to perform better... If you're doing longer distance, lower density
>> shots where you want as much gain as possible, and vertical beamwidth isn't
>> important, the 20db sector is most likely going to work better.
>> On Apr 15, 2016 8:35 PM, "Josh Reynolds"  wrote:
>>
>>> Marketing, for one.
>>>
>>> That said, it depends on your deployment needs.
>>>
>>> A horn will have a much larger vertical beamwidtg and cleaner edges, but
>>> this is at the cost of gain.
>>>
>>> OTOH, the larger the gain, the larger the antenna.
>>>
>>> This is all just general antenna stuff, is there some metric or
>>> reasoning you're looking for in particular? It's all mostly relative.
>>> On Apr 15, 2016 8:33 PM, "Keefe John"  wrote:
>>>
 So RF Elements claims their 90 degree 10 dbi symmetrical horn performs
 better than a traditional UBNT 90 degree 20 dbi sector. How and why?

 Keefe

>>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] RF Elements Symmetrical Horns vs Traditional Sectors

[Josh Reynolds]

F/B is normally pretty bad on most sectors. Cleaner on horns. Panels being
worse in every way than either horn or sector.
On Apr 15, 2016 8:52 PM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

> It is important to note how sloppy a sector is in the gain it achieves.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Mathew Howard" 
> *To: *"af" 
> *Sent: *Friday, April 15, 2016 8:47:40 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] RF Elements Symmetrical Horns vs Traditional
> Sectors
>
> I imagine it'll depend on how you're measuring performance. If larger
> vertical beamwidth and cleaner edges are important in your deployment, it's
> going to perform better... If you're doing longer distance, lower density
> shots where you want as much gain as possible, and vertical beamwidth isn't
> important, the 20db sector is most likely going to work better.
> On Apr 15, 2016 8:35 PM, "Josh Reynolds"  wrote:
>
>> Marketing, for one.
>>
>> That said, it depends on your deployment needs.
>>
>> A horn will have a much larger vertical beamwidtg and cleaner edges, but
>> this is at the cost of gain.
>>
>> OTOH, the larger the gain, the larger the antenna.
>>
>> This is all just general antenna stuff, is there some metric or reasoning
>> you're looking for in particular? It's all mostly relative.
>> On Apr 15, 2016 8:33 PM, "Keefe John"  wrote:
>>
>>> So RF Elements claims their 90 degree 10 dbi symmetrical horn performs
>>> better than a traditional UBNT 90 degree 20 dbi sector. How and why?
>>>
>>> Keefe
>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] RF Elements Symmetrical Horns vs Traditional Sectors

[Mike Hammett]

It is important to note how sloppy a sector is in the gain it achieves. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Mathew Howard"  
To: "af"  
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 8:47:40 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] RF Elements Symmetrical Horns vs Traditional Sectors 


I imagine it'll depend on how you're measuring performance. If larger vertical 
beamwidth and cleaner edges are important in your deployment, it's going to 
perform better... If you're doing longer distance, lower density shots where 
you want as much gain as possible, and vertical beamwidth isn't important, the 
20db sector is most likely going to work better. 
On Apr 15, 2016 8:35 PM, "Josh Reynolds" < j...@kyneticwifi.com > wrote: 



Marketing, for one. 
That said, it depends on your deployment needs. 
A horn will have a much larger vertical beamwidtg and cleaner edges, but this 
is at the cost of gain. 
OTOH, the larger the gain, the larger the antenna. 
This is all just general antenna stuff, is there some metric or reasoning 
you're looking for in particular? It's all mostly relative. 
On Apr 15, 2016 8:33 PM, "Keefe John" < keefe...@ethoplex.com > wrote: 


So RF Elements claims their 90 degree 10 dbi symmetrical horn performs better 
than a traditional UBNT 90 degree 20 dbi sector. How and why? 

Keefe 

Re: [AFMUG] RF Elements Symmetrical Horns vs Traditional Sectors

[Mathew Howard]

I imagine it'll depend on how you're measuring performance. If larger
vertical beamwidth and cleaner edges are important in your deployment, it's
going to perform better... If you're doing longer distance, lower density
shots where you want as much gain as possible, and vertical beamwidth isn't
important, the 20db sector is most likely going to work better.
On Apr 15, 2016 8:35 PM, "Josh Reynolds"  wrote:

> Marketing, for one.
>
> That said, it depends on your deployment needs.
>
> A horn will have a much larger vertical beamwidtg and cleaner edges, but
> this is at the cost of gain.
>
> OTOH, the larger the gain, the larger the antenna.
>
> This is all just general antenna stuff, is there some metric or reasoning
> you're looking for in particular? It's all mostly relative.
> On Apr 15, 2016 8:33 PM, "Keefe John"  wrote:
>
>> So RF Elements claims their 90 degree 10 dbi symmetrical horn performs
>> better than a traditional UBNT 90 degree 20 dbi sector. How and why?
>>
>> Keefe
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs

[Mike Hammett]

Right, 10 MHz licenses for sure. 

I believe the SAS knows about equipment capability and could handle whatever 
size the equipment had to work with. 

Future equipment won't necessarily have the adjacent channel requirements to 
act as one. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Ken Hohhof"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 8:43:55 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs 




OK, fair warning, I am going by memory, but I thought the FCC was very specific 
that PALs would be 10 MHz licenses. 

So if you had 2 PALs in the same area, or were using GAA, could you request and 
receive a 20 MHz contiguous allocation from the SAS? I guess maybe, although I 
would be very surprised. And if you got lucky and the SAS assigned you 2 x 10 
MHz adjacent channels, I think that could change at any time. 





From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 8:16 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs 


Have we actually heard anything official on 10 MHz vs. more or is that just a 
WAG based on 10 MHz licenses? I would assume the SAS would support larger 
channels. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Ken Hohhof"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:10:45 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs 

Are you talking licensed spectrum, or 3.65 GHz? 

Going forward, I don't think we should plan on 20 MHz channels in 3550-3700 
MHz, even now under Part 90 rules it is somewhat unrealistic. If you are 
talking about aggregating non contiguous 10 MHz channels, that's different. 


-Original Message- 
From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:05 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs 

Are we talking about LTE or Wimax? 

Of the 4 Wimax systems I've used, the Compact is probably the worst. 
I'm assured that all of my problems are fixed when we upgrade to LTE. 

I'm not sure I trust the opinions on LTE. People are very focused on 
the NLOS performance, and they are still experiencing the "wow" factor 
of getting a connection working in a weird place that seems like it 
shouldn't work. I haven't seen much conversation about whether the 
connection you get is something supportable. Wimax always had the 
problem that if the customer tells you something is wrong you have a 
hard time proving whether there is or isn't a problem without going on 
site. I don't know if LTE on the compact really changes that 
situation. I do know the Gemtek CPE still has no damn ethernet stats. 

In LTE the AP can use a 20mhz channel at 64QAM and get close to a 
hundred meg aggregate on that. You can pay a license fee for dual 
carrier mode and use 2 x 20mhz channels to double that. With MU-MIMO at 
some future date they expect to double that. So best case is 400meg (I 
believe). Since using 40mhz might not be practical, divide that by what 
you can actually use. 

They do have a capacity planning spreadsheet if you can get in touch 
with someone who has it. 



On 4/13/2016 1:08 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote: 
> 
> Sorry for the on topic content. 
> 
> Would those of you here who have played enough with the telrad gear please 
> explain to me the realities of things like capacity per ap/channel/mhz, 
> distance capability (ie link budget), and the like? Ie what should really 
> be on a spec sheet. 
> 
> I'm still trying to dig through the marketing spin to understand the real 
> capabilities of these units. 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs

[Josh Reynolds]

The SAS doesn't even exist yet, right? Seems like the FCC got paralyzed for
awhile by Carrier desire to use 3.65 for LTE-U
On Apr 15, 2016 8:43 PM, "Ken Hohhof"  wrote:

> OK, fair warning, I am going by memory, but I thought the FCC was very
> specific that PALs would be 10 MHz licenses.
>
> So if you had 2 PALs in the same area, or were using GAA, could you
> request and receive a 20 MHz contiguous allocation from the SAS?  I guess
> maybe, although I would be very surprised.  And if you got lucky and the
> SAS assigned you 2 x 10 MHz adjacent channels, I think that could change at
> any time.
>
>
> *From:* Mike Hammett 
> *Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2016 8:16 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs
>
> Have we actually heard anything official on 10 MHz vs. more or is that
> just a WAG based on 10 MHz licenses? I would assume the SAS would support
> larger channels.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Ken Hohhof" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:10:45 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs
>
> Are you talking licensed spectrum, or 3.65 GHz?
>
> Going forward, I don't think we should plan on 20 MHz channels in
> 3550-3700
> MHz, even now under Part 90 rules it is somewhat unrealistic.  If you are
> talking about aggregating non contiguous 10 MHz channels, that's different.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Adam Moffett
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:05 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs
>
> Are we talking about LTE or Wimax?
>
> Of the 4 Wimax systems I've used, the Compact is probably the worst.
> I'm assured that all of my problems are fixed when we upgrade to LTE.
>
> I'm not sure I trust the opinions on LTE.  People are very focused on
> the NLOS performance, and they are still experiencing the "wow" factor
> of getting a connection working in a weird place that seems like it
> shouldn't work.  I haven't seen much conversation about whether the
> connection you get is something supportable.  Wimax always had the
> problem that if the customer tells you something is wrong you have a
> hard time proving whether there is or isn't a problem without going on
> site.  I don't know if LTE on the compact really changes that
> situation.  I do know the Gemtek CPE still has no damn ethernet stats.
>
> In LTE the AP can use a 20mhz channel at 64QAM and get close to a
> hundred meg aggregate on that.  You can pay a license fee for dual
> carrier mode and use 2 x 20mhz channels to double that.  With MU-MIMO at
> some future date they expect to double that.  So best case is 400meg (I
> believe).  Since using 40mhz might not be practical, divide that by what
> you can actually use.
>
> They do have a capacity planning spreadsheet if you can get in touch
> with someone who has it.
>
>
>
> On 4/13/2016 1:08 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
> >
> > Sorry for the on topic content.
> >
> > Would those of you here who have played enough with the telrad gear
> please
> > explain to me the realities of things like capacity per ap/channel/mhz,
> > distance capability (ie link budget), and the like?  Ie what should
> really
> > be on a spec sheet.
> >
> > I'm still trying to dig through the marketing spin to understand the
> real
> > capabilities of these units.
> >
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs

[Ken Hohhof]

OK, fair warning, I am going by memory, but I thought the FCC was very specific 
that PALs would be 10 MHz licenses.

So if you had 2 PALs in the same area, or were using GAA, could you request and 
receive a 20 MHz contiguous allocation from the SAS?  I guess maybe, although I 
would be very surprised.  And if you got lucky and the SAS assigned you 2 x 10 
MHz adjacent channels, I think that could change at any time.


From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 8:16 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs

Have we actually heard anything official on 10 MHz vs. more or is that just a 
WAG based on 10 MHz licenses? I would assume the SAS would support larger 
channels.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP








From: "Ken Hohhof" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs

Are you talking licensed spectrum, or 3.65 GHz?

Going forward, I don't think we should plan on 20 MHz channels in 3550-3700 
MHz, even now under Part 90 rules it is somewhat unrealistic.  If you are 
talking about aggregating non contiguous 10 MHz channels, that's different.


-Original Message- 
From: Adam Moffett
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:05 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs

Are we talking about LTE or Wimax?

Of the 4 Wimax systems I've used, the Compact is probably the worst.
I'm assured that all of my problems are fixed when we upgrade to LTE.

I'm not sure I trust the opinions on LTE.  People are very focused on
the NLOS performance, and they are still experiencing the "wow" factor
of getting a connection working in a weird place that seems like it
shouldn't work.  I haven't seen much conversation about whether the
connection you get is something supportable.  Wimax always had the
problem that if the customer tells you something is wrong you have a
hard time proving whether there is or isn't a problem without going on
site.  I don't know if LTE on the compact really changes that
situation.  I do know the Gemtek CPE still has no damn ethernet stats.

In LTE the AP can use a 20mhz channel at 64QAM and get close to a
hundred meg aggregate on that.  You can pay a license fee for dual
carrier mode and use 2 x 20mhz channels to double that.  With MU-MIMO at
some future date they expect to double that.  So best case is 400meg (I
believe).  Since using 40mhz might not be practical, divide that by what
you can actually use.

They do have a capacity planning spreadsheet if you can get in touch
with someone who has it.



On 4/13/2016 1:08 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
>
> Sorry for the on topic content.
>
> Would those of you here who have played enough with the telrad gear please 
> explain to me the realities of things like capacity per ap/channel/mhz, 
> distance capability (ie link budget), and the like?  Ie what should really 
> be on a spec sheet.
>
> I'm still trying to dig through the marketing spin to understand the real 
> capabilities of these units.
>

Re: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?

[Mathew Howard]

That should do it. selling the plan to the legislative branch should be
easy enough, just offer them a cut.

I'd also like to get in early and request a cabinet position... I don't
need a cut of the profits, just a job that isn't to much work but has
plenty of opportunities for accepting bribes.
On Apr 15, 2016 5:03 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" 
wrote:

Im legalizing pot, therefore i will win

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> Since your kleptocracy platform won't be popular, what story will you tell
> in order to get elected?
>
> How will you sell your plan to the legislative branch who will actually
> have to make it law?
>
> I just don't know if this plan has been thought through very thoroughly.
> https://youtu.be/93B072j-E3I?t=8
>
>
>
> On 4/15/2016 12:55 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote:
>
> I want to get in first and ask to be VP with a cut of the profits...
>
>
>
> *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm 
> *Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2016 11:52 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?
>
> Thats just stupid. When Im president, I will just do away with that funny
> business. Im still going to raise taxes to 90 percent, but im not
> redistributing that to anybody but me.
>
> I dont know much about the cable tv industry or its actual infrastructure
> obviously
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Josh Reynolds < 
> j...@kyneticwifi.com> wrote:
>
>> It IS delivered to the customer via the ISP, but it's encrypted due to
>> content / rebroadcast rights blah blah blah
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:44 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
>>  wrote:
>> > Well, I learned something. I just assume all content was only delivered
>> to
>> > the service provider, and then the service provider handed it to the
>> > consumer via their delivery infrastructure. That would make more sense
>> to
>> > me.
>> >
>> >
>> > I just never saw entertainment (internet included) as being something
>> worthy
>> > of any federal attention
>> >
>> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Josh Reynolds 
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It's a bit of a mess really.
>> >>
>> >> You have inbound content feeds or peering, which is often encrypted.
>> >> This hits their different "content servers" in your network that you
>> >> often have no control over. A customer ONT has a list of channels and
>> >> encryption keys programmed into it, and it sends off a bunch of
>> >> multicast join requests for the content to these content servers. The
>> >> content is end-end encrypted. You're kind of a dumb pipe in this
>> >> scenario.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:34 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
>> >>
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> > maybe i misunderstand how this works, I assumed the service provider
>> >> > gets
>> >> > the content, however they get the content, then delivers the content
>> on
>> >> > their own system to the set top box. Are you saying the content
>> provider
>> >> > delivers the content directly to the consumer set top box currently
>> just
>> >> > transiting the service provider network?
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Josh Reynolds <
>> j...@kyneticwifi.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I have no idea what you just said.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Currently, content providers are using proprietary DRM (in many
>> cases)
>> >> >> to send content feeds.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For instance, we have 5 content providers and our own sat farm now.
>> >> >> Each one has a different demarc box for encryption and keys, and we
>> >> >> have to manage keys for content for each user and each set top.
>> It's a
>> >> >> fucking nightmare. We also are limited to a handful of set tops that
>> >> >> will work with their systems.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:24 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
>> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> > Forcing providers from using proprietary technology on their
>> >> >> > infrastructure
>> >> >> > to maximize performance of their service into hammering a square
>> peg
>> >> >> > into a
>> >> >> > round hole so everybody has a square peg will not turn out well.
>> It
>> >> >> > will
>> >> >> > however ensure that digital theft becomes a much simpler process,
>> so
>> >> >> > thats
>> >> >> > always good.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:16 AM,  wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> If you actually read the FCC document, I cannot help but thinking
>> >> >> >> this
>> >> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> almost forcing al la carte on the cable providers.  Looks like
>> good
>> >> >> >> stuff to
>> >> >> >> me.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> From: That One Guy /sarcasm
>> >> >> >> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 9:44 AM
>> >> >> >> To: af@afmug.com
>> >> >> >> Subject: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> 

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[Scott Vander Dussen]

Yeah, the initial call to Cap1 was not so much a pre auth as verifying this was 
OK with their ToS.

Thanks,
`S

---
Sent mobile, typed by thumbs.

On Apr 15, 2016, at 15:56, Travis Johnson > 
wrote:


This seems like it was a lot of work and issues and headaches (phone calls 
getting pre-auths, then calling again to double check, etc) all to get cashback 
rewards that probably equated to less than $400. Your time should be worth more 
than that as the CEO of a company.


Travis


On 4/15/2016 2:43 PM, Scott Vander Dussen wrote:
I’ve received a few off-list request for my story and a couple here on-list.  I 
don’t mind sharing, I just didn’t want to come out with a rant about IPPay 
because that wasn’t my goal.  I share this experience because I really value 
this list and the contributions made by all you wonderful people.  Few things 
have shaped my business and been as valuable of a resource as this list 
(beginning as Part-15.org to current), so thank you 
everyone!  (:  Part of that awesomeness is sometimes sharing the less than 
stellar experiences we face, here’s mine with IP Pay.

1. I wanted to make a purchase that was not eligible for a CC payment and get 
the cash back rewards

2. I contacted Cap1 and asked if I could use one of those blank “courtesy 
checks” they send out to write to myself and basically get a cash advance plus 
then get the cash back rewards. They said no problem, but the checks are exempt 
from cash back rewards.

3. I asked if I as a business could run my own card into my own bank account 
for the cash rewards.  She said no problem, I asked her to research the Cap 1 
Visa ToS to verify, she did and again no problem.  I then asked her to triple 
verify by confirming with her supervisor, and again no problem.  They said if 
you have that resource to process your own card and you’re paying your minimum 
balances etc. it’s a non-issue.

4. I researched “Credit Card Kiting” which is the process of paying a credit 
card balance with another credit card- the practice is only a problem when 
there is deception involved.  Even the Wikipedia article demonstrates its OK 
when there is not deception.  And this isn’t even kiting, it’s just processing 
a credit card for cash in the bank.

5. We process a card for $20k

6. Tanya Krapil from IPPay halts the transaction,  holds the funds and emails 
me asking if it’s legit.  (lost a whole day of expected funds because of this)

7. I reply it’s legit.

8. Tayan demands invoices and “documentation” before she will release the funds.

9. I reply: “We don't share our invoices with parties not involved with the 
transaction, that is not only a breach of confidentiality but inappropriate for 
you to ask. While I can appreciate your concern for fraud I have, as the CEO of 
Velociter, already confirmed the legitimacy of this transaction. If at this 
time you are cause further delays in processing this transaction then I will 
consider your actions as unreasonable non-performance and a termination of our 
long standing business relationship.”

10. Tayna the replies that she will process this transaction.

11. Subsequently Tayna spoke telephonically with other staff and determined the 
card was employee owned.  Tayna said she’d process the payment but it isn’t a 
kosher practice.

12. Tayna then emails me to tell me just kidding, she’s not going to process 
the payment after all. (losing yet another day of expected funds)

My grief is that on a $20k tag Tayna doesn’t bother to pick up the phone and 
call, just arbitrarily held the funds and sent an email.  Then she said two 
times that she would indeed process the payment only to then change her mind 
later.  It’s horrible customer service to say one thing and then not honor it, 
even if you made a mistake.  I’m particularly bothered by her asking for 
“invoices and documentation” to support the charge; the US in particular is 
getting so used to sacrificing our privacy and freedoms.  Tayna is demanding I 
send over information that completely out of her sphere of concern.

Tayna is citing that it’s a Visa policy not process your own card, but has 
provided no documentation to support that.  There is no deception involved, we 
called and pre-authorized the transaction with Cap1 on a recorded call and Cap1 
gave their blessing.  I contract with IPPay to process the CC cards I enter, 
nothing more.  Even if there is some obscure Visa ToS that prohibits this 
transaction for this specific reason (this is *not* credit card kiting) Tayna’s 
lack of professionalism and the subsequent headache it’s caused me finished my 
company’s business relationship with IPPay.  And I would greatly question who 
is the enforcement of Visa’s ToS, the merchant or the issuing bank.  I’d lean 
heavily towards the issuing bank.

Anyhow, thanks for the feedback and suggestions of other merchants.

Scott

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: 

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[Scott Vander Dussen]

It's not the alarm from IP Pay that was an issue, it's how it was handled. Out 
of 10's of 1,000's of transactions from multiple companies I've never had the 
processor act in this way, the ISSUING BANK yes, but not the processor. Just to 
clarify, the issuing bank who's money was being processed, they were ok with it.

Thanks,
`S

---
Sent mobile, typed by thumbs.

On Apr 15, 2016, at 14:59, Eric Kuhnke 
> wrote:


I really don't see how paying yourself $20k with your own card is NOT going to 
set off all sorts of automated fraud alerts. This is what any responsible card 
processor would do.

On Apr 15, 2016 1:43 PM, "Scott Vander Dussen" 
> wrote:
I’ve received a few off-list request for my story and a couple here on-list.  I 
don’t mind sharing, I just didn’t want to come out with a rant about IPPay 
because that wasn’t my goal.  I share this experience because I really value 
this list and the contributions made by all you wonderful people.  Few things 
have shaped my business and been as valuable of a resource as this list 
(beginning as Part-15.org to current), so thank you 
everyone!  (:  Part of that awesomeness is sometimes sharing the less than 
stellar experiences we face, here’s mine with IP Pay.

1. I wanted to make a purchase that was not eligible for a CC payment and get 
the cash back rewards

2. I contacted Cap1 and asked if I could use one of those blank “courtesy 
checks” they send out to write to myself and basically get a cash advance plus 
then get the cash back rewards. They said no problem, but the checks are exempt 
from cash back rewards.

3. I asked if I as a business could run my own card into my own bank account 
for the cash rewards.  She said no problem, I asked her to research the Cap 1 
Visa ToS to verify, she did and again no problem.  I then asked her to triple 
verify by confirming with her supervisor, and again no problem.  They said if 
you have that resource to process your own card and you’re paying your minimum 
balances etc. it’s a non-issue.

4. I researched “Credit Card Kiting” which is the process of paying a credit 
card balance with another credit card- the practice is only a problem when 
there is deception involved.  Even the Wikipedia article demonstrates its OK 
when there is not deception.  And this isn’t even kiting, it’s just processing 
a credit card for cash in the bank.

5. We process a card for $20k

6. Tanya Krapil from IPPay halts the transaction,  holds the funds and emails 
me asking if it’s legit.  (lost a whole day of expected funds because of this)

7. I reply it’s legit.

8. Tayan demands invoices and “documentation” before she will release the funds.

9. I reply: “We don't share our invoices with parties not involved with the 
transaction, that is not only a breach of confidentiality but inappropriate for 
you to ask. While I can appreciate your concern for fraud I have, as the CEO of 
Velociter, already confirmed the legitimacy of this transaction. If at this 
time you are cause further delays in processing this transaction then I will 
consider your actions as unreasonable non-performance and a termination of our 
long standing business relationship.”

10. Tayna the replies that she will process this transaction.

11. Subsequently Tayna spoke telephonically with other staff and determined the 
card was employee owned.  Tayna said she’d process the payment but it isn’t a 
kosher practice.

12. Tayna then emails me to tell me just kidding, she’s not going to process 
the payment after all. (losing yet another day of expected funds)

My grief is that on a $20k tag Tayna doesn’t bother to pick up the phone and 
call, just arbitrarily held the funds and sent an email.  Then she said two 
times that she would indeed process the payment only to then change her mind 
later.  It’s horrible customer service to say one thing and then not honor it, 
even if you made a mistake.  I’m particularly bothered by her asking for 
“invoices and documentation” to support the charge; the US in particular is 
getting so used to sacrificing our privacy and freedoms.  Tayna is demanding I 
send over information that completely out of her sphere of concern.

Tayna is citing that it’s a Visa policy not process your own card, but has 
provided no documentation to support that.  There is no deception involved, we 
called and pre-authorized the transaction with Cap1 on a recorded call and Cap1 
gave their blessing.  I contract with IPPay to process the CC cards I enter, 
nothing more.  Even if there is some obscure Visa ToS that prohibits this 
transaction for this specific reason (this is *not* credit card kiting) Tayna’s 
lack of professionalism and the subsequent headache it’s caused me finished my 
company’s business relationship with IPPay.  And I would greatly question who 
is the enforcement of Visa’s ToS, the merchant or the issuing bank.  

Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP

[George Skorup]

2GHz to light?

On 4/15/2016 2:21 PM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:

At any frequency.
*From:* Josh Luthman 
*Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2016 12:30 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP
At 100 GHz?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:24 PM, > wrote:


Open waveguides have about 10 dB gain and about a 50 degree pattern.
*From:* Josh Reynolds 
*Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2016 10:47 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP
I like the horn design because they're very clean as far as
antenna coverage goes, and they're also good for covering both
close in customers as well as several miles out. Much better than
a standard sector.
Also they're small "A F", but solidly built. Low wind load means
you can put more of them on a micropop 25G.
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Mike Hammett > wrote:

People seem to forget that gain is inversely proportional to
coverage area. A sector that moves the vertical beamwidth from
4 degrees to 90 degrees will have a very detrimental effect on
gain.

That said, the lack of gain everywhere outside of the intended
area is non-existent, meaning much lower noise.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Josh Reynolds" >
*To: *af@afmug.com 
*Sent: *Friday, April 15, 2016 11:32:11 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP


They're great for 802.11ac style micropops

Good vertical coverage though, much better than a sector. Clean
beamwidth / edges.

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Josh Luthman
> wrote:
> It's another option anyway =)
>
> I'm kind of liking the horn antenna, but the gain is low.  A
90* is only
> 10dbi but a 40* is 16dbi.  Or the 50* at 14dbi.
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340 
> Direct: 937-552-2343 
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Jeremy
> wrote:
>>
>> Nevermind, I missed the "short of buying a connectorized
AP" part.  Also,
>> these are small in physical size, but not so much in beamwidth.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Jeremy
> wrote:
>>>
>>> AM-M-V5G-TI
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Gino Villarini
>
>>> wrote:

 ebay is your friend

 On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Gino Villarini
>
 wrote:
>
> blessed that you can use 40 mhz...
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Adam Moffett
>
> wrote:
>>
>> Those only have 100mbps ethernet, correct?  On a 40mhz
channel they
>> can do 180mbps+ aggregate which is why I've been using
the Force110 for the
>> little sites.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/15/2016 11:04 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
>>
>> If you dont need gps syc, just do a Epmp 1000 integrated...
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Josh Luthman
>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> Force 180.  It's more gain, very narrow azimuth (great
for a CPE).
>>> It's the same thing turned 

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[Mike Hammett]

I assume the merchant takes it in the shorts for more than whatever the reward 
offers. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "That One Guy /sarcasm"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 6:21:03 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services 


maybe its a 5% cashback, i remember when my discover card had that 


On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Travis Johnson < t...@ida.net > wrote: 




Well, after thinking about this more... he gave up 3% in the processing fees 
with IPPay... so really, it was a negative deal... so how many cheeseburgers is 
that? :) 


Travis 


On 4/15/2016 4:57 PM, Chuck McCown wrote: 





I dunno, $400 is a lot of cheeseburgers. 




From: Travis Johnson 


Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 4:54 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services 




This seems like it was a lot of work and issues and headaches (phone calls 
getting pre-auths, then calling again to double check, etc) all to get cashback 
rewards that probably equated to less than $400. Your time should be worth more 
than that as the CEO of a company. 


Travis 


On 4/15/2016 2:43 PM, Scott Vander Dussen wrote: 




I’ve received a few off-list request for my story and a couple here on-list. I 
don’t mind sharing, I just didn’t want to come out with a rant about IPPay 
because that wasn’t my goal. I share this experience because I really value 
this list and the contributions made by all you wonderful people. Few things 
have shaped my business and been as valuable of a resource as this list 
(beginning as Part-15.org to current), so thank you everyone! (: Part of that 
awesomeness is sometimes sharing the less than stellar experiences we face, 
here’s mine with IP Pay. 

1. I wanted to make a purchase that was not eligible for a CC payment and get 
the cash back rewards 

2. I contacted Cap1 and asked if I could use one of those blank “courtesy 
checks” they send out to write to myself and basically get a cash advance plus 
then get the cash back rewards. They said no problem, but the checks are exempt 
from cash back rewards. 

3. I asked if I as a business could run my own card into my own bank account 
for the cash rewards. She said no problem, I asked her to research the Cap 1 
Visa ToS to verify, she did and again no problem. I then asked her to triple 
verify by confirming with her supervisor, and again no problem. They said if 
you have that resource to process your own card and you’re paying your minimum 
balances etc. it’s a non-issue. 

4. I researched “Credit Card Kiting” which is the process of paying a credit 
card balance with another credit card- the practice is only a problem when 
there is deception involved. Even the Wikipedia article demonstrates its OK 
when there is not deception. And this isn’t even kiting, it’s just processing a 
credit card for cash in the bank. 

5. We process a card for $20k 

6. Tanya Krapil from IPPay halts the transaction, holds the funds and emails me 
asking if it’s legit. (lost a whole day of expected funds because of this) 

7. I reply it’s legit. 

8. Tayan demands invoices and “documentation” before she will release the 
funds. 

9. I reply: “We don't share our invoices with parties not involved with the 
transaction, that is not only a breach of confidentiality but inappropriate for 
you to ask. While I can appreciate your concern for fraud I have, as the CEO of 
Velociter, already confirmed the legitimacy of this transaction. If at this 
time you are cause further delays in processing this transaction then I will 
consider your actions as unreasonable non-performance and a termination of our 
long standing business relationship.” 

10. Tayna the replies that she will process this transaction. 

11. Subsequently Tayna spoke telephonically with other staff and determined the 
card was employee owned. Tayna said she’d process the payment but it isn’t a 
kosher practice. 

12. Tayna then emails me to tell me just kidding, she’s not going to process 
the payment after all. (losing yet another day of expected funds) 

My grief is that on a $20k tag Tayna doesn’t bother to pick up the phone and 
call, just arbitrarily held the funds and sent an email. Then she said two 
times that she would indeed process the payment only to then change her mind 
later. It’s horrible customer service to say one thing and then not honor it, 
even if you made a mistake. I’m particularly bothered by her asking for 
“invoices and documentation” to support the charge; the US in particular is 
getting so used to sacrificing our privacy and freedoms. Tayna is demanding I 
send over information that completely out of her sphere of concern. 

Tayna is citing that it’s a Visa policy not process your own card, but has 
provided no documentation to support that. There is no deception involved, we 
called and pre-authorized the transaction with Cap1 

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

maybe its a 5% cashback, i remember when my discover card had that

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:

> Well, after thinking about this more... he gave up 3% in the processing
> fees with IPPay... so really, it was a negative deal... so how many
> cheeseburgers is that? :)
>
>
> Travis
>
> On 4/15/2016 4:57 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
>
> I dunno, $400 is a lot of cheeseburgers.
>
> *From:* Travis Johnson 
> *Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2016 4:54 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services
>
>
> This seems like it was a lot of work and issues and headaches (phone calls
> getting pre-auths, then calling again to double check, etc) all to get
> cashback rewards that probably equated to less than $400. Your time should
> be worth more than that as the CEO of a company.
>
>
>
> Travis
>
>
>
> On 4/15/2016 2:43 PM, Scott Vander Dussen wrote:
>
> I’ve received a few off-list request for my story and a couple here
> on-list.  I don’t mind sharing, I just didn’t want to come out with a rant
> about IPPay because that wasn’t my goal.  I share this experience because I
> really value this list and the contributions made by all you wonderful
> people.  Few things have shaped my business and been as valuable of a
> resource as this list (beginning as Part-15.org to current), so thank you
> everyone!  (:  Part of that awesomeness is sometimes sharing the less than
> stellar experiences we face, here’s mine with IP Pay.
>
>
>
> 1. I wanted to make a purchase that was not eligible for a CC payment and
> get the cash back rewards
>
>
>
> 2. I contacted Cap1 and asked if I could use one of those blank “courtesy
> checks” they send out to write to myself and basically get a cash advance
> plus then get the cash back rewards. They said no problem, but the checks
> are exempt from cash back rewards.
>
>
>
> 3. I asked if I as a business could run my own card into my own bank
> account for the cash rewards.  She said no problem, I asked her to research
> the Cap 1 Visa ToS to verify, she did and again no problem.  I then asked
> her to triple verify by confirming with her supervisor, and again no
> problem.  They said if you have that resource to process your own card and
> you’re paying your minimum balances etc. it’s a non-issue.
>
>
>
> 4. I researched “Credit Card Kiting” which is the process of paying a
> credit card balance with another credit card- the practice is only a
> problem when there is deception involved.  Even the Wikipedia article
> demonstrates its OK when there is not deception.  And this isn’t even
> kiting, it’s just processing a credit card for cash in the bank.
>
>
>
> 5. We process a card for $20k
>
>
>
> 6. Tanya Krapil from IPPay halts the transaction,  holds the funds and
> emails me asking if it’s legit.  (lost a whole day of expected funds
> because of this)
>
>
>
> 7. I reply it’s legit.
>
>
>
> 8. Tayan demands invoices and “documentation” before she will release the
> funds.
>
>
>
> 9. I reply: “We don't share our invoices with parties not involved with
> the transaction, that is not only a breach of confidentiality but
> inappropriate for you to ask. While I can appreciate your concern for fraud
> I have, as the CEO of Velociter, already confirmed the legitimacy of this
> transaction. If at this time you are cause further delays in processing
> this transaction then I will consider your actions as unreasonable
> non-performance and a termination of our long standing business
> relationship.”
>
>
>
> 10. Tayna the replies that she will process this transaction.
>
>
>
> 11. Subsequently Tayna spoke telephonically with other staff and
> determined the card was employee owned.  Tayna said she’d process the
> payment but it isn’t a kosher practice.
>
>
>
> 12. Tayna then emails me to tell me just kidding, she’s not going to
> process the payment after all. (losing yet another day of expected funds)
>
>
>
> My grief is that on a $20k tag Tayna doesn’t bother to pick up the phone
> and call, just arbitrarily held the funds and sent an email.  Then she said
> two times that she would indeed process the payment only to then change her
> mind later.  It’s horrible customer service to say one thing and then not
> honor it, even if you made a mistake.  I’m particularly bothered by her
> asking for “invoices and documentation” to support the charge; the US in
> particular is getting so used to sacrificing our privacy and freedoms.
> Tayna is demanding I send over information that completely out of her
> sphere of concern.
>
>
>
> Tayna is citing that it’s a Visa policy not process your own card, but has
> provided no documentation to support that.  There is no deception involved,
> we called and pre-authorized the transaction with Cap1 on a recorded call
> and Cap1 gave their blessing.  I contract with IPPay to process the CC
> cards I enter, nothing more.  Even if there is some obscure Visa ToS that
> prohibits this transaction for this 

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[Travis Johnson]

Well, after thinking about this more... he gave up 3% in the processing 
fees with IPPay... so really, it was a negative deal... so how many 
cheeseburgers is that? :)



Travis


On 4/15/2016 4:57 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:

I dunno, $400 is a lot of cheeseburgers.
*From:* Travis Johnson 
*Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2016 4:54 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

This seems like it was a lot of work and issues and headaches (phone 
calls getting pre-auths, then calling again to double check, etc) all 
to get cashback rewards that probably equated to less than $400. Your 
time should be worth more than that as the CEO of a company.


Travis


On 4/15/2016 2:43 PM, Scott Vander Dussen wrote:


I’ve received a few off-list request for my story and a couple here 
on-list.  I don’t mind sharing, I just didn’t want to come out with a 
rant about IPPay because that wasn’t my goal.  I share this 
experience because I really value this list and the contributions 
made by all you wonderful people. Few things have shaped my business 
and been as valuable of a resource as this list (beginning as 
Part-15.org to current), so thank you everyone!  (: Part of that 
awesomeness is sometimes sharing the less than stellar experiences we 
face, here’s mine with IP Pay.


1. I wanted to make a purchase that was not eligible for a CC payment 
and get the cash back rewards


2. I contacted Cap1 and asked if I could use one of those blank 
“courtesy checks” they send out to write to myself and basically get 
a cash advance plus then get the cash back rewards. They said no 
problem, but the checks are exempt from cash back rewards.


3. I asked if I as a business could run my own card into my own bank 
account for the cash rewards.  She said no problem, I asked her to 
research the Cap 1 Visa ToS to verify, she did and again no problem.  
I then asked her to triple verify by confirming with her supervisor, 
and again no problem.  They said if you have that resource to process 
your own card and you’re paying your minimum balances etc. it’s a 
non-issue.


4. I researched “Credit Card Kiting” which is the process of paying a 
credit card balance with another credit card- the practice is only a 
problem when there is deception involved.  Even the Wikipedia article 
demonstrates its OK when there is not deception.  And this isn’t even 
kiting, it’s just processing a credit card for cash in the bank.


5. We process a card for $20k

6. Tanya Krapil from IPPay halts the transaction,  holds the funds 
and emails me asking if it’s legit.  (lost a whole day of expected 
funds because of this)


7. I reply it’s legit.

8. Tayan demands invoices and “documentation” before she will release 
the funds.


9. I reply: “We don't share our invoices with parties not involved 
with the transaction, that is not only a breach of confidentiality 
but inappropriate for you to ask. While I can appreciate your concern 
for fraud I have, as the CEO of Velociter, already confirmed the 
legitimacy of this transaction. If at this time you are cause further 
delays in processing this transaction then I will consider your 
actions as unreasonable non-performance and a termination of our long 
standing business relationship.”


10. Tayna the replies that she will process this transaction.

11. Subsequently Tayna spoke telephonically with other staff and 
determined the card was employee owned.  Tayna said she’d process the 
payment but it isn’t a kosher practice.


12. Tayna then emails me to tell me just kidding, she’s not going to 
process the payment after all. (losing yet another day of expected funds)


My grief is that on a $20k tag Tayna doesn’t bother to pick up the 
phone and call, just arbitrarily held the funds and sent an email.  
Then she said two times that she would indeed process the payment 
only to then change her mind later.  It’s horrible customer service 
to say one thing and then not honor it, even if you made a mistake.  
I’m particularly bothered by her asking for “invoices and 
documentation” to support the charge; the US in particular is getting 
so used to sacrificing our privacy and freedoms.  Tayna is demanding 
I send over information that completely out of her sphere of concern.


Tayna is citing that it’s a Visa policy not process your own card, 
but has provided no documentation to support that.  There is no 
deception involved, we called and pre-authorized the transaction with 
Cap1 on a recorded call and Cap1 gave their blessing.  I contract 
with IPPay to process the CC cards I enter, nothing more.  Even if 
there is some obscure Visa ToS that prohibits this transaction for 
this specific reason (this is **not** credit card kiting) Tayna’s 
lack of professionalism and the subsequent headache it’s caused me 
finished my company’s business relationship with IPPay.  And I would 
greatly question who is the enforcement of Visa’s ToS, the merchant 
or the issuing 

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[Sterling Jacobson]

Yeah, nice trick, but not surprised IPPay handled it that way.

The way I use IPPay its really expected a bunch of low monthly charges.

$20k charge on my own card for rewards? Probably not something the merchants or 
card company cares for.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 4:54 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services


This seems like it was a lot of work and issues and headaches (phone calls 
getting pre-auths, then calling again to double check, etc) all to get cashback 
rewards that probably equated to less than $400. Your time should be worth more 
than that as the CEO of a company.



Travis



On 4/15/2016 2:43 PM, Scott Vander Dussen wrote:
I’ve received a few off-list request for my story and a couple here on-list.  I 
don’t mind sharing, I just didn’t want to come out with a rant about IPPay 
because that wasn’t my goal.  I share this experience because I really value 
this list and the contributions made by all you wonderful people.  Few things 
have shaped my business and been as valuable of a resource as this list 
(beginning as Part-15.org to current), so thank you everyone!  (:  Part of that 
awesomeness is sometimes sharing the less than stellar experiences we face, 
here’s mine with IP Pay.

1. I wanted to make a purchase that was not eligible for a CC payment and get 
the cash back rewards

2. I contacted Cap1 and asked if I could use one of those blank “courtesy 
checks” they send out to write to myself and basically get a cash advance plus 
then get the cash back rewards. They said no problem, but the checks are exempt 
from cash back rewards.

3. I asked if I as a business could run my own card into my own bank account 
for the cash rewards.  She said no problem, I asked her to research the Cap 1 
Visa ToS to verify, she did and again no problem.  I then asked her to triple 
verify by confirming with her supervisor, and again no problem.  They said if 
you have that resource to process your own card and you’re paying your minimum 
balances etc. it’s a non-issue.

4. I researched “Credit Card Kiting” which is the process of paying a credit 
card balance with another credit card- the practice is only a problem when 
there is deception involved.  Even the Wikipedia article demonstrates its OK 
when there is not deception.  And this isn’t even kiting, it’s just processing 
a credit card for cash in the bank.

5. We process a card for $20k

6. Tanya Krapil from IPPay halts the transaction,  holds the funds and emails 
me asking if it’s legit.  (lost a whole day of expected funds because of this)

7. I reply it’s legit.

8. Tayan demands invoices and “documentation” before she will release the funds.

9. I reply: “We don't share our invoices with parties not involved with the 
transaction, that is not only a breach of confidentiality but inappropriate for 
you to ask. While I can appreciate your concern for fraud I have, as the CEO of 
Velociter, already confirmed the legitimacy of this transaction. If at this 
time you are cause further delays in processing this transaction then I will 
consider your actions as unreasonable non-performance and a termination of our 
long standing business relationship.”

10. Tayna the replies that she will process this transaction.

11. Subsequently Tayna spoke telephonically with other staff and determined the 
card was employee owned.  Tayna said she’d process the payment but it isn’t a 
kosher practice.

12. Tayna then emails me to tell me just kidding, she’s not going to process 
the payment after all. (losing yet another day of expected funds)

My grief is that on a $20k tag Tayna doesn’t bother to pick up the phone and 
call, just arbitrarily held the funds and sent an email.  Then she said two 
times that she would indeed process the payment only to then change her mind 
later.  It’s horrible customer service to say one thing and then not honor it, 
even if you made a mistake.  I’m particularly bothered by her asking for 
“invoices and documentation” to support the charge; the US in particular is 
getting so used to sacrificing our privacy and freedoms.  Tayna is demanding I 
send over information that completely out of her sphere of concern.

Tayna is citing that it’s a Visa policy not process your own card, but has 
provided no documentation to support that.  There is no deception involved, we 
called and pre-authorized the transaction with Cap1 on a recorded call and Cap1 
gave their blessing.  I contract with IPPay to process the CC cards I enter, 
nothing more.  Even if there is some obscure Visa ToS that prohibits this 
transaction for this specific reason (this is *not* credit card kiting) Tayna’s 
lack of professionalism and the subsequent headache it’s caused me finished my 
company’s business relationship with IPPay.  And I would greatly question who 
is the enforcement of Visa’s ToS, the merchant or the issuing bank.  I’d lean 
heavily towards the issuing 

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[Chuck McCown]

I dunno, $400 is a lot of cheeseburgers.

From: Travis Johnson 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 4:54 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

This seems like it was a lot of work and issues and headaches (phone calls 
getting pre-auths, then calling again to double check, etc) all to get cashback 
rewards that probably equated to less than $400. Your time should be worth more 
than that as the CEO of a company.




Travis





On 4/15/2016 2:43 PM, Scott Vander Dussen wrote:

  I’ve received a few off-list request for my story and a couple here on-list.  
I don’t mind sharing, I just didn’t want to come out with a rant about IPPay 
because that wasn’t my goal.  I share this experience because I really value 
this list and the contributions made by all you wonderful people.  Few things 
have shaped my business and been as valuable of a resource as this list 
(beginning as Part-15.org to current), so thank you everyone!  (:  Part of that 
awesomeness is sometimes sharing the less than stellar experiences we face, 
here’s mine with IP Pay.

   

  1. I wanted to make a purchase that was not eligible for a CC payment and get 
the cash back rewards

   

  2. I contacted Cap1 and asked if I could use one of those blank “courtesy 
checks” they send out to write to myself and basically get a cash advance plus 
then get the cash back rewards. They said no problem, but the checks are exempt 
from cash back rewards.

   

  3. I asked if I as a business could run my own card into my own bank account 
for the cash rewards.  She said no problem, I asked her to research the Cap 1 
Visa ToS to verify, she did and again no problem.  I then asked her to triple 
verify by confirming with her supervisor, and again no problem.  They said if 
you have that resource to process your own card and you’re paying your minimum 
balances etc. it’s a non-issue.

   

  4. I researched “Credit Card Kiting” which is the process of paying a credit 
card balance with another credit card- the practice is only a problem when 
there is deception involved.  Even the Wikipedia article demonstrates its OK 
when there is not deception.  And this isn’t even kiting, it’s just processing 
a credit card for cash in the bank.

   

  5. We process a card for $20k

   

  6. Tanya Krapil from IPPay halts the transaction,  holds the funds and emails 
me asking if it’s legit.  (lost a whole day of expected funds because of this)

   

  7. I reply it’s legit.

   

  8. Tayan demands invoices and “documentation” before she will release the 
funds.

   

  9. I reply: “We don't share our invoices with parties not involved with the 
transaction, that is not only a breach of confidentiality but inappropriate for 
you to ask. While I can appreciate your concern for fraud I have, as the CEO of 
Velociter, already confirmed the legitimacy of this transaction. If at this 
time you are cause further delays in processing this transaction then I will 
consider your actions as unreasonable non-performance and a termination of our 
long standing business relationship.”

   

  10. Tayna the replies that she will process this transaction.

   

  11. Subsequently Tayna spoke telephonically with other staff and determined 
the card was employee owned.  Tayna said she’d process the payment but it isn’t 
a kosher practice.

   

  12. Tayna then emails me to tell me just kidding, she’s not going to process 
the payment after all. (losing yet another day of expected funds)

   

  My grief is that on a $20k tag Tayna doesn’t bother to pick up the phone and 
call, just arbitrarily held the funds and sent an email.  Then she said two 
times that she would indeed process the payment only to then change her mind 
later.  It’s horrible customer service to say one thing and then not honor it, 
even if you made a mistake.  I’m particularly bothered by her asking for 
“invoices and documentation” to support the charge; the US in particular is 
getting so used to sacrificing our privacy and freedoms.  Tayna is demanding I 
send over information that completely out of her sphere of concern.

   

  Tayna is citing that it’s a Visa policy not process your own card, but has 
provided no documentation to support that.  There is no deception involved, we 
called and pre-authorized the transaction with Cap1 on a recorded call and Cap1 
gave their blessing.  I contract with IPPay to process the CC cards I enter, 
nothing more.  Even if there is some obscure Visa ToS that prohibits this 
transaction for this specific reason (this is *not* credit card kiting) Tayna’s 
lack of professionalism and the subsequent headache it’s caused me finished my 
company’s business relationship with IPPay.  And I would greatly question who 
is the enforcement of Visa’s ToS, the merchant or the issuing bank.  I’d lean 
heavily towards the issuing bank.

   

  Anyhow, thanks for the feedback and suggestions of other merchants.

   

  Scott

   

  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] 

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[Travis Johnson]

This seems like it was a lot of work and issues and headaches (phone 
calls getting pre-auths, then calling again to double check, etc) all to 
get cashback rewards that probably equated to less than $400. Your time 
should be worth more than that as the CEO of a company.



Travis



On 4/15/2016 2:43 PM, Scott Vander Dussen wrote:


I’ve received a few off-list request for my story and a couple here 
on-list.  I don’t mind sharing, I just didn’t want to come out with a 
rant about IPPay because that wasn’t my goal.  I share this experience 
because I really value this list and the contributions made by all you 
wonderful people.  Few things have shaped my business and been as 
valuable of a resource as this list (beginning as Part-15.org to 
current), so thank you everyone!  (:  Part of that awesomeness is 
sometimes sharing the less than stellar experiences we face, here’s 
mine with IP Pay.


1. I wanted to make a purchase that was not eligible for a CC payment 
and get the cash back rewards


2. I contacted Cap1 and asked if I could use one of those blank 
“courtesy checks” they send out to write to myself and basically get a 
cash advance plus then get the cash back rewards. They said no 
problem, but the checks are exempt from cash back rewards.


3. I asked if I as a business could run my own card into my own bank 
account for the cash rewards.  She said no problem, I asked her to 
research the Cap 1 Visa ToS to verify, she did and again no problem.  
I then asked her to triple verify by confirming with her supervisor, 
and again no problem.  They said if you have that resource to process 
your own card and you’re paying your minimum balances etc. it’s a 
non-issue.


4. I researched “Credit Card Kiting” which is the process of paying a 
credit card balance with another credit card- the practice is only a 
problem when there is deception involved.  Even the Wikipedia article 
demonstrates its OK when there is not deception.  And this isn’t even 
kiting, it’s just processing a credit card for cash in the bank.


5. We process a card for $20k

6. Tanya Krapil from IPPay halts the transaction,  holds the funds and 
emails me asking if it’s legit.  (lost a whole day of expected funds 
because of this)


7. I reply it’s legit.

8. Tayan demands invoices and “documentation” before she will release 
the funds.


9. I reply: “We don't share our invoices with parties not involved 
with the transaction, that is not only a breach of confidentiality but 
inappropriate for you to ask. While I can appreciate your concern for 
fraud I have, as the CEO of Velociter, already confirmed the 
legitimacy of this transaction. If at this time you are cause further 
delays in processing this transaction then I will consider your 
actions as unreasonable non-performance and a termination of our long 
standing business relationship.”


10. Tayna the replies that she will process this transaction.

11. Subsequently Tayna spoke telephonically with other staff and 
determined the card was employee owned.  Tayna said she’d process the 
payment but it isn’t a kosher practice.


12. Tayna then emails me to tell me just kidding, she’s not going to 
process the payment after all. (losing yet another day of expected funds)


My grief is that on a $20k tag Tayna doesn’t bother to pick up the 
phone and call, just arbitrarily held the funds and sent an email.  
Then she said two times that she would indeed process the payment only 
to then change her mind later. It’s horrible customer service to say 
one thing and then not honor it, even if you made a mistake.  I’m 
particularly bothered by her asking for “invoices and documentation” 
to support the charge; the US in particular is getting so used to 
sacrificing our privacy and freedoms.  Tayna is demanding I send over 
information that completely out of her sphere of concern.


Tayna is citing that it’s a Visa policy not process your own card, but 
has provided no documentation to support that.  There is no deception 
involved, we called and pre-authorized the transaction with Cap1 on a 
recorded call and Cap1 gave their blessing.  I contract with IPPay to 
process the CC cards I enter, nothing more.  Even if there is some 
obscure Visa ToS that prohibits this transaction for this specific 
reason (this is **not** credit card kiting) Tayna’s lack of 
professionalism and the subsequent headache it’s caused me finished my 
company’s business relationship with IPPay.  And I would greatly 
question who is the enforcement of Visa’s ToS, the merchant or the 
issuing bank.  I’d lean heavily towards the issuing bank.


Anyhow, thanks for the feedback and suggestions of other merchants.

Scott

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
*Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2016 11:35
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

Same.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

I would be appreciative for a doublecheck on a 20k transaction, assuming
that is not a normal transaction for that card, I can imagine if you had
been robbed of 20k you would be pissed they didnt flag it, having 20k tied
up would be worse than a delayed transaction.

The verification call was completely acceptable (assuming it was immediate
upon the transaction hold being implemented.

The question I have is, how would they have you prove its not kiting?, not
being a dick about it, just genuinely curious of your expectations. Im
assuming there is an obscure TOS term with their contract with visa where
the processor is penalized for allowing a potential kite to fly, I would
guess this broad is personally aware of it because she probably got her ass
handed to her once learning about it the hard way.

Everything up to number 7 is completely reasonable

8 is where it gets hairy

9 and 10, still on track

11 is a complete WTF??!! if she already spoke with you via an authorized
account holder email, but if her role is loss prevention also, it would be
acceptable for her to have made a verbal identity verification unless you
provided an acceptable digital signature via the email


up til this point, you just sound like an irritated dick, like we all do
when we have an unexpected delay on things that are supposed to be pretty
time saving


then 12 comes along, that in itself would be enough for me to not ever do
business with a company

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Eric Kuhnke  wrote:

> I really don't see how paying yourself $20k with your own card is NOT
> going to set off all sorts of automated fraud alerts. This is what any
> responsible card processor would do.
> On Apr 15, 2016 1:43 PM, "Scott Vander Dussen" 
> wrote:
>
>> I’ve received a few off-list request for my story and a couple here
>> on-list.  I don’t mind sharing, I just didn’t want to come out with a rant
>> about IPPay because that wasn’t my goal.  I share this experience because I
>> really value this list and the contributions made by all you wonderful
>> people.  Few things have shaped my business and been as valuable of a
>> resource as this list (beginning as Part-15.org to current), so thank you
>> everyone!  (:  Part of that awesomeness is sometimes sharing the less than
>> stellar experiences we face, here’s mine with IP Pay.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. I wanted to make a purchase that was not eligible for a CC payment and
>> get the cash back rewards
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. I contacted Cap1 and asked if I could use one of those blank “courtesy
>> checks” they send out to write to myself and basically get a cash advance
>> plus then get the cash back rewards. They said no problem, but the checks
>> are exempt from cash back rewards.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. I asked if I as a business could run my own card into my own bank
>> account for the cash rewards.  She said no problem, I asked her to research
>> the Cap 1 Visa ToS to verify, she did and again no problem.  I then asked
>> her to triple verify by confirming with her supervisor, and again no
>> problem.  They said if you have that resource to process your own card and
>> you’re paying your minimum balances etc. it’s a non-issue.
>>
>>
>>
>> 4. I researched “Credit Card Kiting” which is the process of paying a
>> credit card balance with another credit card- the practice is only a
>> problem when there is deception involved.  Even the Wikipedia article
>> demonstrates its OK when there is not deception.  And this isn’t even
>> kiting, it’s just processing a credit card for cash in the bank.
>>
>>
>>
>> 5. We process a card for $20k
>>
>>
>>
>> 6. Tanya Krapil from IPPay halts the transaction,  holds the funds and
>> emails me asking if it’s legit.  (lost a whole day of expected funds
>> because of this)
>>
>>
>>
>> 7. I reply it’s legit.
>>
>>
>>
>> 8. Tayan demands invoices and “documentation” before she will release the
>> funds.
>>
>>
>>
>> 9. I reply: “We don't share our invoices with parties not involved with
>> the transaction, that is not only a breach of confidentiality but
>> inappropriate for you to ask. While I can appreciate your concern for fraud
>> I have, as the CEO of Velociter, already confirmed the legitimacy of this
>> transaction. If at this time you are cause further delays in processing
>> this transaction then I will consider your actions as unreasonable
>> non-performance and a termination of our long standing business
>> relationship.”
>>
>>
>>
>> 10. Tayna the replies that she will process this transaction.
>>
>>
>>
>> 11. Subsequently Tayna spoke telephonically with other staff and
>> determined the card was employee owned.  Tayna said she’d process the
>> payment but it isn’t a kosher practice.
>>
>>
>>
>> 12. Tayna then emails me to tell me just kidding, she’s not going to
>> process the payment after all. (losing yet another day of expected funds)
>>
>>
>>
>> My grief is that on a $20k tag Tayna doesn’t bother to pick up the phone
>> and 

Re: [AFMUG] Dummy switch

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

intellinet are cheap dumb switches, never had any issue with them, even
have a couple out in the field for years because they have been tossed in
in emergencies and never presented a problem to justify return trips to
those sites, they make good surge protectors

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Eric Kuhnke  wrote:

> I've had good results with an eight port ASUS, not sure what chipset is in
> it. Seems a bit higher quality than the really cheap Taiwanese models.
> On Apr 15, 2016 10:44 AM, "Brian Sullivan" 
> wrote:
>
>> Looking for the best 5-8 port dummy switch that wont break the bank.  <
>> $100
>> Tried TP-Link and Trendnet with poor results.
>>
>


-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

Im legalizing pot, therefore i will win

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> Since your kleptocracy platform won't be popular, what story will you tell
> in order to get elected?
>
> How will you sell your plan to the legislative branch who will actually
> have to make it law?
>
> I just don't know if this plan has been thought through very thoroughly.
> https://youtu.be/93B072j-E3I?t=8
>
>
>
> On 4/15/2016 12:55 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote:
>
> I want to get in first and ask to be VP with a cut of the profits...
>
>
>
> *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm 
> *Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2016 11:52 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?
>
> Thats just stupid. When Im president, I will just do away with that funny
> business. Im still going to raise taxes to 90 percent, but im not
> redistributing that to anybody but me.
>
> I dont know much about the cable tv industry or its actual infrastructure
> obviously
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Josh Reynolds < 
> j...@kyneticwifi.com> wrote:
>
>> It IS delivered to the customer via the ISP, but it's encrypted due to
>> content / rebroadcast rights blah blah blah
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:44 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
>>  wrote:
>> > Well, I learned something. I just assume all content was only delivered
>> to
>> > the service provider, and then the service provider handed it to the
>> > consumer via their delivery infrastructure. That would make more sense
>> to
>> > me.
>> >
>> >
>> > I just never saw entertainment (internet included) as being something
>> worthy
>> > of any federal attention
>> >
>> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Josh Reynolds 
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It's a bit of a mess really.
>> >>
>> >> You have inbound content feeds or peering, which is often encrypted.
>> >> This hits their different "content servers" in your network that you
>> >> often have no control over. A customer ONT has a list of channels and
>> >> encryption keys programmed into it, and it sends off a bunch of
>> >> multicast join requests for the content to these content servers. The
>> >> content is end-end encrypted. You're kind of a dumb pipe in this
>> >> scenario.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:34 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
>> >>
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> > maybe i misunderstand how this works, I assumed the service provider
>> >> > gets
>> >> > the content, however they get the content, then delivers the content
>> on
>> >> > their own system to the set top box. Are you saying the content
>> provider
>> >> > delivers the content directly to the consumer set top box currently
>> just
>> >> > transiting the service provider network?
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Josh Reynolds <
>> j...@kyneticwifi.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I have no idea what you just said.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Currently, content providers are using proprietary DRM (in many
>> cases)
>> >> >> to send content feeds.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For instance, we have 5 content providers and our own sat farm now.
>> >> >> Each one has a different demarc box for encryption and keys, and we
>> >> >> have to manage keys for content for each user and each set top.
>> It's a
>> >> >> fucking nightmare. We also are limited to a handful of set tops that
>> >> >> will work with their systems.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:24 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
>> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> > Forcing providers from using proprietary technology on their
>> >> >> > infrastructure
>> >> >> > to maximize performance of their service into hammering a square
>> peg
>> >> >> > into a
>> >> >> > round hole so everybody has a square peg will not turn out well.
>> It
>> >> >> > will
>> >> >> > however ensure that digital theft becomes a much simpler process,
>> so
>> >> >> > thats
>> >> >> > always good.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:16 AM,  wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> If you actually read the FCC document, I cannot help but thinking
>> >> >> >> this
>> >> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> almost forcing al la carte on the cable providers.  Looks like
>> good
>> >> >> >> stuff to
>> >> >> >> me.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> From: That One Guy /sarcasm
>> >> >> >> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 9:44 AM
>> >> >> >> To: af@afmug.com
>> >> >> >> Subject: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> 
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/04/15/obama-is-urging-the-fcc-to-open-up-the-cable-box-so-you-can-watch-tv-how-you-really-want/
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> First world problems.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> If you 

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[Eric Kuhnke]

I really don't see how paying yourself $20k with your own card is NOT going
to set off all sorts of automated fraud alerts. This is what any
responsible card processor would do.
On Apr 15, 2016 1:43 PM, "Scott Vander Dussen"  wrote:

> I’ve received a few off-list request for my story and a couple here
> on-list.  I don’t mind sharing, I just didn’t want to come out with a rant
> about IPPay because that wasn’t my goal.  I share this experience because I
> really value this list and the contributions made by all you wonderful
> people.  Few things have shaped my business and been as valuable of a
> resource as this list (beginning as Part-15.org to current), so thank you
> everyone!  (:  Part of that awesomeness is sometimes sharing the less than
> stellar experiences we face, here’s mine with IP Pay.
>
>
>
> 1. I wanted to make a purchase that was not eligible for a CC payment and
> get the cash back rewards
>
>
>
> 2. I contacted Cap1 and asked if I could use one of those blank “courtesy
> checks” they send out to write to myself and basically get a cash advance
> plus then get the cash back rewards. They said no problem, but the checks
> are exempt from cash back rewards.
>
>
>
> 3. I asked if I as a business could run my own card into my own bank
> account for the cash rewards.  She said no problem, I asked her to research
> the Cap 1 Visa ToS to verify, she did and again no problem.  I then asked
> her to triple verify by confirming with her supervisor, and again no
> problem.  They said if you have that resource to process your own card and
> you’re paying your minimum balances etc. it’s a non-issue.
>
>
>
> 4. I researched “Credit Card Kiting” which is the process of paying a
> credit card balance with another credit card- the practice is only a
> problem when there is deception involved.  Even the Wikipedia article
> demonstrates its OK when there is not deception.  And this isn’t even
> kiting, it’s just processing a credit card for cash in the bank.
>
>
>
> 5. We process a card for $20k
>
>
>
> 6. Tanya Krapil from IPPay halts the transaction,  holds the funds and
> emails me asking if it’s legit.  (lost a whole day of expected funds
> because of this)
>
>
>
> 7. I reply it’s legit.
>
>
>
> 8. Tayan demands invoices and “documentation” before she will release the
> funds.
>
>
>
> 9. I reply: “We don't share our invoices with parties not involved with
> the transaction, that is not only a breach of confidentiality but
> inappropriate for you to ask. While I can appreciate your concern for fraud
> I have, as the CEO of Velociter, already confirmed the legitimacy of this
> transaction. If at this time you are cause further delays in processing
> this transaction then I will consider your actions as unreasonable
> non-performance and a termination of our long standing business
> relationship.”
>
>
>
> 10. Tayna the replies that she will process this transaction.
>
>
>
> 11. Subsequently Tayna spoke telephonically with other staff and
> determined the card was employee owned.  Tayna said she’d process the
> payment but it isn’t a kosher practice.
>
>
>
> 12. Tayna then emails me to tell me just kidding, she’s not going to
> process the payment after all. (losing yet another day of expected funds)
>
>
>
> My grief is that on a $20k tag Tayna doesn’t bother to pick up the phone
> and call, just arbitrarily held the funds and sent an email.  Then she said
> two times that she would indeed process the payment only to then change her
> mind later.  It’s horrible customer service to say one thing and then not
> honor it, even if you made a mistake.  I’m particularly bothered by her
> asking for “invoices and documentation” to support the charge; the US in
> particular is getting so used to sacrificing our privacy and freedoms.
> Tayna is demanding I send over information that completely out of her
> sphere of concern.
>
>
>
> Tayna is citing that it’s a Visa policy not process your own card, but has
> provided no documentation to support that.  There is no deception involved,
> we called and pre-authorized the transaction with Cap1 on a recorded call
> and Cap1 gave their blessing.  I contract with IPPay to process the CC
> cards I enter, nothing more.  Even if there is some obscure Visa ToS that
> prohibits this transaction for this specific reason (this is **not**
> credit card kiting) Tayna’s lack of professionalism and the subsequent
> headache it’s caused me finished my company’s business relationship with
> IPPay.  And I would greatly question who is the enforcement of Visa’s ToS,
> the merchant or the issuing bank.  I’d lean heavily towards the issuing
> bank.
>
>
>
> Anyhow, thanks for the feedback and suggestions of other merchants.
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
> *Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2016 11:35
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services
>
>
>
> Same.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Dummy switch

[Eric Kuhnke]

I've had good results with an eight port ASUS, not sure what chipset is in
it. Seems a bit higher quality than the really cheap Taiwanese models.
On Apr 15, 2016 10:44 AM, "Brian Sullivan" 
wrote:

> Looking for the best 5-8 port dummy switch that wont break the bank.  <
> $100
> Tried TP-Link and Trendnet with poor results.
>

Re: [AFMUG] 80 GHz manufacturers

[Eric Kuhnke]

Missed one more

aoptix

The people with the gargantuan 80+laser product. Used by some HFT links
(ANOVA) in new york and NJ.
On Apr 15, 2016 10:34 AM, "Daniel White"  wrote:

> Aviat
>
> Huawei
>
> Lightpointe
>
>
>
> Daniel White
>
> Managing Director – Hardware Distribution Sales
>
> ConVergence Technologies
>
> Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590
>
> dwh...@converge-tech.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Eric Kuhnke
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 14, 2016 1:27 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 80 GHz manufacturers
>
>
>
> And Alcoma, which is, I think, Czech...
>
> http://www.alcoma.com/
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
> wrote:
>
> oh and I forgot Elva-1, the russians with the 1 and 10GbE FDD radio.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Josh Reynolds 
> wrote:
>
> Dragonwave (Harmony E-Band)
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
> wrote:
> > Bridgewave
> >
> > E-band
> >
> > Siklu
> >
> > SIAE
> >
> > NEC (rumors are that internally it is a Bridgewave/REMEC radio)
> >
> > Intracom Telecom
> >
> > Fujitsu (again rumors that this is OEMed from somewhere else)
> >
> > Gigabeam (defunct)
> >
> > Ericsson
> >
> > Fastback Networks
> >
> > Ceragon
> >
> >
> >
> > am I missing anyone?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> 
>

Re: [AFMUG] 80 GHz manufacturers

[Daniel White]

Very much so.  They got into the low latency game and are/were doing very well.



Daniel White

Managing Director – Hardware Distribution Sales

ConVergence Technologies

Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590

  dwh...@converge-tech.com



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 3:32 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 80 GHz manufacturers



Lightpointe is still alive and shipping product?

On Apr 15, 2016 10:34 AM, "Daniel White"  > wrote:

Aviat

Huawei

Lightpointe



Daniel White

Managing Director – Hardware Distribution Sales

ConVergence Technologies

Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590 

  dwh...@converge-tech.com



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com  ] On Behalf 
Of Eric Kuhnke
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 1:27 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 80 GHz manufacturers



And Alcoma, which is, I think, Czech...

http://www.alcoma.com/



On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Eric Kuhnke  > wrote:

oh and I forgot Elva-1, the russians with the 1 and 10GbE FDD radio.



On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Josh Reynolds  > wrote:

Dragonwave (Harmony E-Band)


On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Eric Kuhnke  > wrote:
> Bridgewave
>
> E-band
>
> Siklu
>
> SIAE
>
> NEC (rumors are that internally it is a Bridgewave/REMEC radio)
>
> Intracom Telecom
>
> Fujitsu (again rumors that this is OEMed from somewhere else)
>
> Gigabeam (defunct)
>
> Ericsson
>
> Fastback Networks
>
> Ceragon
>
>
>
> am I missing anyone?








 


Virus-free.  

 www.avast.com





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [AFMUG] 80 GHz manufacturers

[Eric Kuhnke]

Lightpointe is still alive and shipping product?
On Apr 15, 2016 10:34 AM, "Daniel White"  wrote:

> Aviat
>
> Huawei
>
> Lightpointe
>
>
>
> Daniel White
>
> Managing Director – Hardware Distribution Sales
>
> ConVergence Technologies
>
> Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590
>
> dwh...@converge-tech.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Eric Kuhnke
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 14, 2016 1:27 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 80 GHz manufacturers
>
>
>
> And Alcoma, which is, I think, Czech...
>
> http://www.alcoma.com/
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
> wrote:
>
> oh and I forgot Elva-1, the russians with the 1 and 10GbE FDD radio.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Josh Reynolds 
> wrote:
>
> Dragonwave (Harmony E-Band)
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
> wrote:
> > Bridgewave
> >
> > E-band
> >
> > Siklu
> >
> > SIAE
> >
> > NEC (rumors are that internally it is a Bridgewave/REMEC radio)
> >
> > Intracom Telecom
> >
> > Fujitsu (again rumors that this is OEMed from somewhere else)
> >
> > Gigabeam (defunct)
> >
> > Ericsson
> >
> > Fastback Networks
> >
> > Ceragon
> >
> >
> >
> > am I missing anyone?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> 
>

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[Josh Luthman]

That is a clever trick...


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

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Keefe John  wrote:

> I've run into this before.
>
> Credit card companies do not like it if you run your own card.  Amex threw
> a fit when I did it once.
>
> Keefe
>
>
> On 4/15/2016 3:43 PM, Scott Vander Dussen wrote:
>
> I’ve received a few off-list request for my story and a couple here
> on-list.  I don’t mind sharing, I just didn’t want to come out with a rant
> about IPPay because that wasn’t my goal.  I share this experience because I
> really value this list and the contributions made by all you wonderful
> people.  Few things have shaped my business and been as valuable of a
> resource as this list (beginning as Part-15.org to current), so thank you
> everyone!  (:  Part of that awesomeness is sometimes sharing the less than
> stellar experiences we face, here’s mine with IP Pay.
>
>
>
> 1. I wanted to make a purchase that was not eligible for a CC payment and
> get the cash back rewards
>
>
>
> 2. I contacted Cap1 and asked if I could use one of those blank “courtesy
> checks” they send out to write to myself and basically get a cash advance
> plus then get the cash back rewards. They said no problem, but the checks
> are exempt from cash back rewards.
>
>
>
> 3. I asked if I as a business could run my own card into my own bank
> account for the cash rewards.  She said no problem, I asked her to research
> the Cap 1 Visa ToS to verify, she did and again no problem.  I then asked
> her to triple verify by confirming with her supervisor, and again no
> problem.  They said if you have that resource to process your own card and
> you’re paying your minimum balances etc. it’s a non-issue.
>
>
>
> 4. I researched “Credit Card Kiting” which is the process of paying a
> credit card balance with another credit card- the practice is only a
> problem when there is deception involved.  Even the Wikipedia article
> demonstrates its OK when there is not deception.  And this isn’t even
> kiting, it’s just processing a credit card for cash in the bank.
>
>
>
> 5. We process a card for $20k
>
>
>
> 6. Tanya Krapil from IPPay halts the transaction,  holds the funds and
> emails me asking if it’s legit.  (lost a whole day of expected funds
> because of this)
>
>
>
> 7. I reply it’s legit.
>
>
>
> 8. Tayan demands invoices and “documentation” before she will release the
> funds.
>
>
>
> 9. I reply: “We don't share our invoices with parties not involved with
> the transaction, that is not only a breach of confidentiality but
> inappropriate for you to ask. While I can appreciate your concern for fraud
> I have, as the CEO of Velociter, already confirmed the legitimacy of this
> transaction. If at this time you are cause further delays in processing
> this transaction then I will consider your actions as unreasonable
> non-performance and a termination of our long standing business
> relationship.”
>
>
>
> 10. Tayna the replies that she will process this transaction.
>
>
>
> 11. Subsequently Tayna spoke telephonically with other staff and
> determined the card was employee owned.  Tayna said she’d process the
> payment but it isn’t a kosher practice.
>
>
>
> 12. Tayna then emails me to tell me just kidding, she’s not going to
> process the payment after all. (losing yet another day of expected funds)
>
>
>
> My grief is that on a $20k tag Tayna doesn’t bother to pick up the phone
> and call, just arbitrarily held the funds and sent an email.  Then she said
> two times that she would indeed process the payment only to then change her
> mind later.  It’s horrible customer service to say one thing and then not
> honor it, even if you made a mistake.  I’m particularly bothered by her
> asking for “invoices and documentation” to support the charge; the US in
> particular is getting so used to sacrificing our privacy and freedoms.
> Tayna is demanding I send over information that completely out of her
> sphere of concern.
>
>
>
> Tayna is citing that it’s a Visa policy not process your own card, but has
> provided no documentation to support that.  There is no deception involved,
> we called and pre-authorized the transaction with Cap1 on a recorded call
> and Cap1 gave their blessing.  I contract with IPPay to process the CC
> cards I enter, nothing more.  Even if there is some obscure Visa ToS that
> prohibits this transaction for this specific reason (this is **not**
> credit card kiting) Tayna’s lack of professionalism and the subsequent
> headache it’s caused me finished my company’s business relationship with
> IPPay.  And I would greatly question who is the enforcement of Visa’s ToS,
> the merchant or the issuing bank.  I’d lean heavily towards the issuing
> bank.
>
>
>
> Anyhow, thanks for the feedback and suggestions of other merchants.
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
> Behalf 

Re: [AFMUG] AlfoPlus2

[Eric Kuhnke]

Well yeah, I guess that's what I was trying to say. Just think of the 4096
as a bonus, it's nice when it's in that nodulation, but realistically any
FDD throughout claims in Mbps from a marketing department are closer to
fluff than operational reality.
On Apr 15, 2016 2:15 PM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

I can take a 4096 radio, add engineering and come up with a 1024 performing
radio (or a 4096 performing radio). I can't turn a 1024 radio into a 4096
radio. Radio, antenna and band selection as appropriate for the uptime at
performance levels required.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 




Midwest Internet Exchange 



The Brothers WISP 




--
*From: *"Eric Kuhnke" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Friday, April 15, 2016 4:12:31 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AlfoPlus2


Keeping in mind 4096qam requires a really high RSL like -50, so it's better
to think of it as a 1024qam radio.

Don't engineer link capacity needs based on 80MHz wide 4096... It'll be in
4096 maybe 99.5% of the year. Done right it can be in 1024 at five nines.
On Apr 15, 2016 11:39 AM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

> Well, what do they get at a 112 MHz channel instead of an 80 MHz channel?
> Europe has 112 MHz channels available now. Before, SIAE had some very good
> spec sheets, so ask for them.
>
> I also think they can do 4096QAM? 4096 QAM and 112 MHz channels might get
> you there.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Peter Kranz" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, April 15, 2016 12:47:09 PM
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] AlfoPlus2
>
> Has anyone worked with the SIAE AlfoPlus2 yet? They promise “ALFOplus2
> full outdoor solution offers 2Gbps guaranteed throughput, enabling
> successful launch of LTE, by providing best TCO while boosting capacity and
> availability of the network.”
>
>
>
> And
>
>
>
> “first full outdoor supporting up to two channels at 80/112MHz in single
> ODU”
>
>
>
> I can’t quite figure out how they are getting 2 Gbps..
>
>
>
> 1x80Mhz Channel at 2048QAM = 623 Mbps in my book
>
> 2x80Mhz Channel at 2048QAM = 1245 Mbps
>
>
>
> So are they really using 4 channels?
>
>
>
> Channel 1 HxV for 1245
>
> Channel 2 HxV for 1245
>
>
>
> Total = 2490 Mbps..
>
>
>
>
> *Peter Kranz*www.UnwiredLtd.com 
> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
> Mobile: 510-207-
> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AlfoPlus2

[Mike Hammett]

I can take a 4096 radio, add engineering and come up with a 1024 performing 
radio (or a 4096 performing radio). I can't turn a 1024 radio into a 4096 
radio. Radio, antenna and band selection as appropriate for the uptime at 
performance levels required. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Eric Kuhnke"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 4:12:31 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AlfoPlus2 


Keeping in mind 4096qam requires a really high RSL like -50, so it's better to 
think of it as a 1024qam radio. 
Don't engineer link capacity needs based on 80MHz wide 4096... It'll be in 4096 
maybe 99.5% of the year. Done right it can be in 1024 at five nines. 
On Apr 15, 2016 11:39 AM, "Mike Hammett" < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




Well, what do they get at a 112 MHz channel instead of an 80 MHz channel? 
Europe has 112 MHz channels available now. Before, SIAE had some very good spec 
sheets, so ask for them. 

I also think they can do 4096QAM? 4096 QAM and 112 MHz channels might get you 
there. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Peter Kranz" < pkr...@unwiredltd.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 12:47:09 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] AlfoPlus2 



Has anyone worked with the SIAE AlfoPlus2 yet? They promise “ ALFOplus2 full 
outdoor solution offers 2Gbps guaranteed throughput, enabling successful launch 
of LTE, by providing best TCO while boosting capacity and availability of the 
network.” 

And 

“first full outdoor supporting up to two channels at 80/112MHz in single ODU” 

I can’t quite figure out how they are getting 2 Gbps.. 

1x80Mhz Channel at 2048QAM = 623 Mbps in my book 
2x80Mhz Channel at 2048QAM = 1245 Mbps 

So are they really using 4 channels? 

Channel 1 HxV for 1245 
Channel 2 HxV for 1245 

Total = 2490 Mbps.. 

Peter Kranz 
www.UnwiredLtd.com 
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 
Mobile: 510-207- 
pkr...@unwiredltd.com 

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[Keefe John]

I've run into this before.

Credit card companies do not like it if you run your own card.  Amex 
threw a fit when I did it once.


Keefe

On 4/15/2016 3:43 PM, Scott Vander Dussen wrote:


I’ve received a few off-list request for my story and a couple here 
on-list.  I don’t mind sharing, I just didn’t want to come out with a 
rant about IPPay because that wasn’t my goal.  I share this experience 
because I really value this list and the contributions made by all you 
wonderful people.  Few things have shaped my business and been as 
valuable of a resource as this list (beginning as Part-15.org to 
current), so thank you everyone!  (:  Part of that awesomeness is 
sometimes sharing the less than stellar experiences we face, here’s 
mine with IP Pay.


1. I wanted to make a purchase that was not eligible for a CC payment 
and get the cash back rewards


2. I contacted Cap1 and asked if I could use one of those blank 
“courtesy checks” they send out to write to myself and basically get a 
cash advance plus then get the cash back rewards. They said no 
problem, but the checks are exempt from cash back rewards.


3. I asked if I as a business could run my own card into my own bank 
account for the cash rewards.  She said no problem, I asked her to 
research the Cap 1 Visa ToS to verify, she did and again no problem.  
I then asked her to triple verify by confirming with her supervisor, 
and again no problem.  They said if you have that resource to process 
your own card and you’re paying your minimum balances etc. it’s a 
non-issue.


4. I researched “Credit Card Kiting” which is the process of paying a 
credit card balance with another credit card- the practice is only a 
problem when there is deception involved.  Even the Wikipedia article 
demonstrates its OK when there is not deception.  And this isn’t even 
kiting, it’s just processing a credit card for cash in the bank.


5. We process a card for $20k

6. Tanya Krapil from IPPay halts the transaction,  holds the funds and 
emails me asking if it’s legit.  (lost a whole day of expected funds 
because of this)


7. I reply it’s legit.

8. Tayan demands invoices and “documentation” before she will release 
the funds.


9. I reply: “We don't share our invoices with parties not involved 
with the transaction, that is not only a breach of confidentiality but 
inappropriate for you to ask. While I can appreciate your concern for 
fraud I have, as the CEO of Velociter, already confirmed the 
legitimacy of this transaction. If at this time you are cause further 
delays in processing this transaction then I will consider your 
actions as unreasonable non-performance and a termination of our long 
standing business relationship.”


10. Tayna the replies that she will process this transaction.

11. Subsequently Tayna spoke telephonically with other staff and 
determined the card was employee owned.  Tayna said she’d process the 
payment but it isn’t a kosher practice.


12. Tayna then emails me to tell me just kidding, she’s not going to 
process the payment after all. (losing yet another day of expected funds)


My grief is that on a $20k tag Tayna doesn’t bother to pick up the 
phone and call, just arbitrarily held the funds and sent an email.  
Then she said two times that she would indeed process the payment only 
to then change her mind later. It’s horrible customer service to say 
one thing and then not honor it, even if you made a mistake.  I’m 
particularly bothered by her asking for “invoices and documentation” 
to support the charge; the US in particular is getting so used to 
sacrificing our privacy and freedoms.  Tayna is demanding I send over 
information that completely out of her sphere of concern.


Tayna is citing that it’s a Visa policy not process your own card, but 
has provided no documentation to support that.  There is no deception 
involved, we called and pre-authorized the transaction with Cap1 on a 
recorded call and Cap1 gave their blessing.  I contract with IPPay to 
process the CC cards I enter, nothing more.  Even if there is some 
obscure Visa ToS that prohibits this transaction for this specific 
reason (this is **not** credit card kiting) Tayna’s lack of 
professionalism and the subsequent headache it’s caused me finished my 
company’s business relationship with IPPay.  And I would greatly 
question who is the enforcement of Visa’s ToS, the merchant or the 
issuing bank.  I’d lean heavily towards the issuing bank.


Anyhow, thanks for the feedback and suggestions of other merchants.

Scott

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
*Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2016 11:35
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

Same.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest 

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[Scott Vander Dussen]

I’ve received a few off-list request for my story and a couple here on-list.  I 
don’t mind sharing, I just didn’t want to come out with a rant about IPPay 
because that wasn’t my goal.  I share this experience because I really value 
this list and the contributions made by all you wonderful people.  Few things 
have shaped my business and been as valuable of a resource as this list 
(beginning as Part-15.org to current), so thank you everyone!  (:  Part of that 
awesomeness is sometimes sharing the less than stellar experiences we face, 
here’s mine with IP Pay.

1. I wanted to make a purchase that was not eligible for a CC payment and get 
the cash back rewards

2. I contacted Cap1 and asked if I could use one of those blank “courtesy 
checks” they send out to write to myself and basically get a cash advance plus 
then get the cash back rewards. They said no problem, but the checks are exempt 
from cash back rewards.

3. I asked if I as a business could run my own card into my own bank account 
for the cash rewards.  She said no problem, I asked her to research the Cap 1 
Visa ToS to verify, she did and again no problem.  I then asked her to triple 
verify by confirming with her supervisor, and again no problem.  They said if 
you have that resource to process your own card and you’re paying your minimum 
balances etc. it’s a non-issue.

4. I researched “Credit Card Kiting” which is the process of paying a credit 
card balance with another credit card- the practice is only a problem when 
there is deception involved.  Even the Wikipedia article demonstrates its OK 
when there is not deception.  And this isn’t even kiting, it’s just processing 
a credit card for cash in the bank.

5. We process a card for $20k

6. Tanya Krapil from IPPay halts the transaction,  holds the funds and emails 
me asking if it’s legit.  (lost a whole day of expected funds because of this)

7. I reply it’s legit.

8. Tayan demands invoices and “documentation” before she will release the funds.

9. I reply: “We don't share our invoices with parties not involved with the 
transaction, that is not only a breach of confidentiality but inappropriate for 
you to ask. While I can appreciate your concern for fraud I have, as the CEO of 
Velociter, already confirmed the legitimacy of this transaction. If at this 
time you are cause further delays in processing this transaction then I will 
consider your actions as unreasonable non-performance and a termination of our 
long standing business relationship.”

10. Tayna the replies that she will process this transaction.

11. Subsequently Tayna spoke telephonically with other staff and determined the 
card was employee owned.  Tayna said she’d process the payment but it isn’t a 
kosher practice.

12. Tayna then emails me to tell me just kidding, she’s not going to process 
the payment after all. (losing yet another day of expected funds)

My grief is that on a $20k tag Tayna doesn’t bother to pick up the phone and 
call, just arbitrarily held the funds and sent an email.  Then she said two 
times that she would indeed process the payment only to then change her mind 
later.  It’s horrible customer service to say one thing and then not honor it, 
even if you made a mistake.  I’m particularly bothered by her asking for 
“invoices and documentation” to support the charge; the US in particular is 
getting so used to sacrificing our privacy and freedoms.  Tayna is demanding I 
send over information that completely out of her sphere of concern.

Tayna is citing that it’s a Visa policy not process your own card, but has 
provided no documentation to support that.  There is no deception involved, we 
called and pre-authorized the transaction with Cap1 on a recorded call and Cap1 
gave their blessing.  I contract with IPPay to process the CC cards I enter, 
nothing more.  Even if there is some obscure Visa ToS that prohibits this 
transaction for this specific reason (this is *not* credit card kiting) Tayna’s 
lack of professionalism and the subsequent headache it’s caused me finished my 
company’s business relationship with IPPay.  And I would greatly question who 
is the enforcement of Visa’s ToS, the merchant or the issuing bank.  I’d lean 
heavily towards the issuing bank.

Anyhow, thanks for the feedback and suggestions of other merchants.

Scott

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 11:35
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

Same.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
Midwest Internet 

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[Keefe John]

sonar, whmcs, just about everything.

https://www.bluepay.com/developers/payment-modules/


On 4/15/2016 3:20 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Never heard of them. Does anything integrate with them? Kinda 
pointless if you can't use it.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Keefe John" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Friday, April 15, 2016 3:18:13 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

Bluepay has better rates than IPPay.

On 4/15/2016 1:02 PM, Scott Vander Dussen wrote:
> Without all the nasty details, I'm completely done doing business 
with IPPay. Any recommendations for alternatives?

>
> Thanks,
> 'S
>
> Sent mobile!

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[Mike Hammett]

Never heard of them. Does anything integrate with them? Kinda pointless if you 
can't use it. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Keefe John"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 3:18:13 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services 

Bluepay has better rates than IPPay. 

On 4/15/2016 1:02 PM, Scott Vander Dussen wrote: 
> Without all the nasty details, I'm completely done doing business with IPPay. 
> Any recommendations for alternatives? 
> 
> Thanks, 
> 'S 
> 
> Sent mobile! 

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[Keefe John]

Bluepay has better rates than IPPay.

On 4/15/2016 1:02 PM, Scott Vander Dussen wrote:

Without all the nasty details, I'm completely done doing business with IPPay. 
Any recommendations for alternatives?

Thanks,
'S

Sent mobile!

Re: [AFMUG] AlfoPlus2

[Peter Kranz]

112 Mhz.. your right.. gets you there..

 

Has anyone been able to swing this approach to deploy 112Mhz channels in the 
US..? Seems like you could use 4x30Mhz channels

 

From

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 74, 78, and 101

[WT Docket No. 04–143; FCC 06–141]

Rechannelization of the 17.7–19.7 GHz

Frequency Band for Fixed Microwave

Services

 

“C. Aggregation

11. We also proposed, in the NPRM, to permit applicants to request any amount 
of available spectrum based on their specific needs, on the condition that 
aggregated channels are contiguous channels, except for channels that are 
already licensed to someone else in the area, and are thus blocked. Comsearch 
asks us to clarify whether applicants also may skip any segments that would be 
affected by interference with other links. We conclude that allowing 
aggregation conditioned upon the proposed requirement that aggregated channels 
be contiguous is necessary to prevent licensees from spacing their channels in 
a manner that effectively could prevent others from using the remaining 
spectrum in the same area. We also, however, agree with Comsearch that where an 
applicant seeks to operate in a particular segment that is unavailable in the 
relevant area, whether due to co-channel licenses or adjacent channel 
interference as determined under our rules (including requirements to comply 
with any applicable agreements with Canada or Mexico in these bands), then it 
is appropriate to allow the applicant to skip that “blocked” segment of 
spectrum.

“

 

Peter Kranz
  www.UnwiredLtd.com
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
  pkr...@unwiredltd.com

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 11:39 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AlfoPlus2

 

Well, what do they get at a 112 MHz channel instead of an 80 MHz channel? 
Europe has 112 MHz channels available now. Before, SIAE had some very good spec 
sheets, so ask for them.

I also think they can do 4096QAM? 4096 QAM and 112 MHz channels might get you 
there.



-
Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions
   
  
  
 
  Midwest Internet Exchange
   
  
 
  The Brothers WISP
   
 




  _  

From: "Peter Kranz"  >
To: af@afmug.com  
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 12:47:09 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] AlfoPlus2

Has anyone worked with the SIAE AlfoPlus2 yet? They promise “ALFOplus2 full 
outdoor solution offers 2Gbps guaranteed throughput, enabling successful launch 
of LTE, by providing best TCO while boosting capacity and availability of the 
network.”

 

And

 

“first full outdoor supporting up to two channels at 80/112MHz in single ODU”

 

I can’t quite figure out how they are getting 2 Gbps..

 

1x80Mhz Channel at 2048QAM = 623 Mbps in my book

2x80Mhz Channel at 2048QAM = 1245 Mbps 

 

So are they really using 4 channels?

 

Channel 1 HxV for 1245

Channel 2 HxV for 1245

 

Total = 2490 Mbps..

 

Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com  
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com  

 

 

Re: [AFMUG] Looks like 60GHz may be our next frontier

[Stefan Englhardt]

There is 802.11ad. A wifi standard. Should help to make 60 GHZ popular.

 Ursprüngliche Nachricht 
Von: Rory Conaway  
Datum: 15.04.2016  20:29  (GMT+01:00) 
An: af@afmug.com 
Betreff: [AFMUG] Looks like 60GHz may be our next frontier 

Re: [AFMUG] Procera CG NAT

[SmarterBroadband]

What kind of price is the smallest model (10Gbps Full Duplex)?

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 8:19 AM
To: Animal Farm
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Procera CG NAT

 

https://www.corero.com/products/corero-smartwall-threat-defense-system.html

 

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Andreas Wiatowski  
wrote:

So what are people doing to do CGN and get around DDOS to a single IP?  We have 
been doing it on the edge, but the minute a single subscriber gets attacked we 
have network impact….. there is no way to suppress, my understanding is that if 
we moved the edge onto the Procera, it can distinguish traffic and suppress an 
attack.

 

As of late, we get 1 to 2 attacks a week…. We have seen 2.8-4Gbps attacks…we 
have changed the natted address to get around, but even then we sometimes have 
the attack follow to the new address.

 

This is becoming a nightmare to manage.  If only I could give every customer a 
public!

 

Cheers,

__

Andreas Wiatowski | CEO

Silo Wireless Inc.

Email  andr...@silowireless.com

19 Sage Court

Brantford, Ontario N3R 7T4 (CANADA)

Tel +1.519.449.5656    
Extension-600|Fax +1.519.449.5536   |Toll Free 
+1.866.727.4138  

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 11:05 AM
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Procera CG NAT

 

afaik, Procera does not support CG NAT 

 

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Andreas Wiatowski  
wrote:

Anyone using CG NAT with Procera…specifically to supress DDOS?

 

Cheers,

__

Andreas Wiatowski | CEO

Silo Wireless Inc.

Email  andr...@silowireless.com

19 Sage Court

Brantford, Ontario N3R 7T4 (CANADA)

Tel +1.519.449.5656    
Extension-600|Fax +1.519.449.5536   |Toll Free 
+1.866.727.4138  

 

 

 

Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP

[chuck]

At any frequency.

From: Josh Luthman 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 12:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP

At 100 GHz?


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

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:24 PM,  wrote:

  Open waveguides have about 10 dB gain and about a 50 degree pattern.  

  From: Josh Reynolds 
  Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 10:47 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP

  I like the horn design because they're very clean as far as antenna coverage 
goes, and they're also good for covering both close in customers as well as 
several miles out. Much better than a standard sector.

  Also they're small "A F", but solidly built. Low wind load means you can put 
more of them on a micropop 25G.

  On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

People seem to forget that gain is inversely proportional to coverage area. 
A sector that moves the vertical beamwidth from 4 degrees to 90 degrees will 
have a very detrimental effect on gain.

That said, the lack of gain everywhere outside of the intended area is 
non-existent, meaning much lower noise.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP








From: "Josh Reynolds" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 11:32:11 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP 


They're great for 802.11ac style micropops

Good vertical coverage though, much better than a sector. Clean
beamwidth / edges.

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Josh Luthman
 wrote:
> It's another option anyway =)
>
> I'm kind of liking the horn antenna, but the gain is low.  A 90* is only
> 10dbi but a 40* is 16dbi.  Or the 50* at 14dbi.
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Jeremy  wrote:
>>
>> Nevermind, I missed the "short of buying a connectorized AP" part.  Also,
>> these are small in physical size, but not so much in beamwidth.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Jeremy  wrote:
>>>
>>> AM-M-V5G-TI
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Gino Villarini 
>>> wrote:

 ebay is your friend

 On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Gino Villarini 
 wrote:
>
> blessed that you can use 40 mhz...
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Adam Moffett 
> wrote:
>>
>> Those only have 100mbps ethernet, correct?  On a 40mhz channel they
>> can do 180mbps+ aggregate which is why I've been using the Force110 
for the
>> little sites.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/15/2016 11:04 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
>>
>> If you dont need gps syc, just do a Epmp 1000 integrated...
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Josh Luthman
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Force 180.  It's more gain, very narrow azimuth (great for a CPE).
>>> It's the same thing turned 90*.
>>>
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Brian Sullivan
>>>  wrote:

 I guess I fell asleep at the ePMP wheel, why would they EOL these?

 On 4/14/2016 5:30 PM, George Skorup wrote:
>
> We bought a bunch of integrated 5GHz radios and keep them in a 
safe
> place for this very reason.
>
> On 4/14/2016 5:28 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone have a suggestion for a small AP antenna?  Previously
>> with Ubnt we would do an NSM5.  This would give us 45*.  The use 
case is
>> just to service a few homes around the corner from the trees.
>>
>> The original integrated radios are 30* but they're EOLed


>>>
>>
>>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[chuck]

I would like to know too...

From: Jason Wilson 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 12:22 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

Scott, I am an IPPay client,  email privately your decision to move.  

Jason



Jason Wilson
Remotely Located
Providing High Speed Internet to out of the way places.
530-651-1736
530-748-9608 Cell
www.remotelylocated.com

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:

  Authorize.net?


  On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Scott Vander Dussen
   wrote:
  > Without all the nasty details, I'm completely done doing business with 
IPPay. Any recommendations for alternatives?
  >
  > Thanks,
  > 'S
  >
  > Sent mobile!

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[Jeremy]

Aw, come on!  We all love nasty details here.  I'm also an IP-Pay
customerand a happy one thus far.  Just make sure to put "in my
opinion..." first.  I think that will save you from a libel suit.

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> Same.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Jason Wilson" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, April 15, 2016 1:22:03 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services
>
>
> Scott, I am an IPPay client,  email privately your decision to move.
>
> Jason
>
>
> Jason Wilson
> Remotely Located
> Providing High Speed Internet to out of the way places.
> 530-651-1736
> 530-748-9608 Cell
> www.remotelylocated.com
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Josh Reynolds 
> wrote:
>
>> Authorize.net?
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Scott Vander Dussen
>>  wrote:
>> > Without all the nasty details, I'm completely done doing business with
>> IPPay. Any recommendations for alternatives?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > 'S
>> >
>> > Sent mobile!
>>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Dummy switch

[Paul McCall]

☺

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 3:08 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Dummy switch

Oh shit here we go again...


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

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Paul McCall 
> wrote:
Obama, but that ship has sailed ☺

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 2:35 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Dummy switch

Let's start with what isn't meeting expectations?


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
Midwest Internet Exchange
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
The Brothers WISP
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]




From: "Brian Sullivan" 
>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 12:44:09 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] Dummy switch

Looking for the best 5-8 port dummy switch that wont break the bank.  < $100
Tried TP-Link and Trendnet with poor results.

Re: [AFMUG] Does anyone service

[Rory Conaway]

Forget it.  They found DSL.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 12:07 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Does anyone service

3000 Green Valley Dr., Cameron Park, Ca.



Rory Conaway * Triad Wireless * CEO
4226 S. 37th Street * Phoenix * AZ 85040
602-426-0542
r...@triadwireless.net
www.triadwireless.net

"In Baseball Heaven...The balls in the batting cage pick themselves up"  - 
Lessons from Baseball

Re: [AFMUG] Dummy switch

[Josh Luthman]

Oh shit here we go again...


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

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Paul McCall  wrote:

> Obama, but that ship has sailed J
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
> *Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2016 2:35 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Dummy switch
>
>
>
> Let's start with what isn't meeting expectations?
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
>
> *From: *"Brian Sullivan" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, April 15, 2016 12:44:09 PM
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] Dummy switch
>
> Looking for the best 5-8 port dummy switch that wont break the bank.  <
> $100
> Tried TP-Link and Trendnet with poor results.
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Dummy switch

[Bill Prince]

It's what I call a self-correcting problem. Most things are 
self-correcting, including climate change. You just have to adjust your 
time frame.



bp


On 4/15/2016 12:07 PM, Paul McCall wrote:


Obama, but that ship has sailed J

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
*Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2016 2:35 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Dummy switch

Let's start with what isn't meeting expectations?



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 







*From: *"Brian Sullivan" >

*To: *af@afmug.com 
*Sent: *Friday, April 15, 2016 12:44:09 PM
*Subject: *[AFMUG] Dummy switch

Looking for the best 5-8 port dummy switch that wont break the bank. 
 < $100

Tried TP-Link and Trendnet with poor results.

[AFMUG] Does anyone service

[Rory Conaway]

3000 Green Valley Dr., Cameron Park, Ca.



Rory Conaway * Triad Wireless * CEO
4226 S. 37th Street * Phoenix * AZ 85040
602-426-0542
r...@triadwireless.net
www.triadwireless.net

"In Baseball Heaven...The balls in the batting cage pick themselves up"  - 
Lessons from Baseball

Re: [AFMUG] Dummy switch

[Paul McCall]

Obama, but that ship has sailed ☺

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 2:35 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Dummy switch

Let's start with what isn't meeting expectations?


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
Midwest Internet Exchange
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
The Brothers WISP
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]




From: "Brian Sullivan" 
>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 12:44:09 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] Dummy switch

Looking for the best 5-8 port dummy switch that wont break the bank.  < $100
Tried TP-Link and Trendnet with poor results.

Re: [AFMUG] Dummy switch

[Brian Sullivan]

One type we would see some packet loss and the other, our router 
reported CRC errors.  Remove switch and problem gone, but so are the 
other devices.

Traffic is below 200Mbps.

On 4/15/2016 1:35 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

Let's start with what isn't meeting expectations?



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Brian Sullivan" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Friday, April 15, 2016 12:44:09 PM
*Subject: *[AFMUG] Dummy switch

Looking for the best 5-8 port dummy switch that wont break the bank. 
 < $100

Tried TP-Link and Trendnet with poor results.

Re: [AFMUG] AlfoPlus2

[Mike Hammett]

Well, what do they get at a 112 MHz channel instead of an 80 MHz channel? 
Europe has 112 MHz channels available now. Before, SIAE had some very good spec 
sheets, so ask for them. 

I also think they can do 4096QAM? 4096 QAM and 112 MHz channels might get you 
there. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Peter Kranz"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 12:47:09 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] AlfoPlus2 



Has anyone worked with the SIAE AlfoPlus2 yet? They promise “ ALFOplus2 full 
outdoor solution offers 2Gbps guaranteed throughput, enabling successful launch 
of LTE, by providing best TCO while boosting capacity and availability of the 
network.” 

And 

“first full outdoor supporting up to two channels at 80/112MHz in single ODU” 

I can’t quite figure out how they are getting 2 Gbps.. 

1x80Mhz Channel at 2048QAM = 623 Mbps in my book 
2x80Mhz Channel at 2048QAM = 1245 Mbps 

So are they really using 4 channels? 

Channel 1 HxV for 1245 
Channel 2 HxV for 1245 

Total = 2490 Mbps.. 

Peter Kranz 
www.UnwiredLtd.com 
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 
Mobile: 510-207- 
pkr...@unwiredltd.com 

Re: [AFMUG] Dummy switch

[Mike Hammett]

Let's start with what isn't meeting expectations? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Brian Sullivan"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 12:44:09 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] Dummy switch 

Looking for the best 5-8 port dummy switch that wont break the bank. < $100 
Tried TP-Link and Trendnet with poor results. 

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[Mike Hammett]

Same. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Jason Wilson"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 1:22:03 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services 



Scott, I am an IPPay client, email privately your decision to move. 


Jason 






Jason Wilson 
Remotely Located 
Providing High Speed Internet to out of the way places. 
530-651-1736 
530-748-9608 Cell 
www.remotelylocated.com 

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Josh Reynolds < j...@kyneticwifi.com > wrote: 


Authorize.net? 



On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Scott Vander Dussen 
< sc...@velociter.net > wrote: 
> Without all the nasty details, I'm completely done doing business with IPPay. 
> Any recommendations for alternatives? 
> 
> Thanks, 
> 'S 
> 
> Sent mobile! 

Re: [AFMUG] Netonix and MPLS

[Carl Peterson]

We have tons of MPLS circuits going through Netonix switches.  I seem to
remember having to do odd MTU calcs but that could just be cisco-juniper.
In any case, if your doing MPLS your likely looking at the MTUs along the
path anyway.


On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Stefan Englhardt  wrote:

> Works. You need to set MTU on all participating ports. Then netonix just
> passes the packets through.
>
>
>
>  Ursprüngliche Nachricht 
> Von: Michael Gawlowski 
> Datum: 15.04.2016 20:16 (GMT+01:00)
> An: af@afmug.com
> Betreff: [AFMUG] Netonix and MPLS
>
>


-- 

Carl Peterson

*PORT NETWORKS*

401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553

Baltimore, MD 21202

(410) 637-3707

Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP

[Josh Luthman]

At 100 GHz?


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

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:24 PM,  wrote:

> Open waveguides have about 10 dB gain and about a 50 degree pattern.
>
> *From:* Josh Reynolds 
> *Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2016 10:47 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP
>
> I like the horn design because they're very clean as far as antenna
> coverage goes, and they're also good for covering both close in customers
> as well as several miles out. Much better than a standard sector.
>
> Also they're small "A F", but solidly built. Low wind load means you can
> put more of them on a micropop 25G.
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> People seem to forget that gain is inversely proportional to coverage
>> area. A sector that moves the vertical beamwidth from 4 degrees to 90
>> degrees will have a very detrimental effect on gain.
>>
>> That said, the lack of gain everywhere outside of the intended area is
>> non-existent, meaning much lower noise.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Josh Reynolds" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Friday, April 15, 2016 11:32:11 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP
>>
>>
>> They're great for 802.11ac style micropops
>>
>> Good vertical coverage though, much better than a sector. Clean
>> beamwidth / edges.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Josh Luthman
>>  wrote:
>> > It's another option anyway =)
>> >
>> > I'm kind of liking the horn antenna, but the gain is low.  A 90* is only
>> > 10dbi but a 40* is 16dbi.  Or the 50* at 14dbi.
>> >
>> >
>> > Josh Luthman
>> > Office: 937-552-2340
>> > Direct: 937-552-2343
>> > 1100 Wayne St
>> > Suite 1337
>> > Troy, OH 45373
>> >
>> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Jeremy 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Nevermind, I missed the "short of buying a connectorized AP" part.
>> Also,
>> >> these are small in physical size, but not so much in beamwidth.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Jeremy 
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> AM-M-V5G-TI
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Gino Villarini 
>> >>> wrote:
>> 
>>  ebay is your friend
>> 
>>  On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Gino Villarini <
>> ginovi...@gmail.com>
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > blessed that you can use 40 mhz...
>> >
>> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Adam Moffett > >
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Those only have 100mbps ethernet, correct?  On a 40mhz channel they
>> >> can do 180mbps+ aggregate which is why I've been using the
>> Force110 for the
>> >> little sites.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 4/15/2016 11:04 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
>> >>
>> >> If you dont need gps syc, just do a Epmp 1000 integrated...
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Josh Luthman
>> >>  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Force 180.  It's more gain, very narrow azimuth (great for a CPE).
>> >>> It's the same thing turned 90*.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Josh Luthman
>> >>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> >>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> >>> 1100 Wayne St
>> >>> Suite 1337
>> >>> Troy, OH 45373
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Brian Sullivan
>> >>>  wrote:
>> 
>>  I guess I fell asleep at the ePMP wheel, why would they EOL
>> these?
>> 
>>  On 4/14/2016 5:30 PM, George Skorup wrote:
>> >
>> > We bought a bunch of integrated 5GHz radios and keep them in a
>> safe
>> > place for this very reason.
>> >
>> > On 4/14/2016 5:28 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Does anyone have a suggestion for a small AP antenna?
>> Previously
>> >> with Ubnt we would do an NSM5.  This would give us 45*.  The
>> use case is
>> >> just to service a few homes around the corner from the trees.
>> >>
>> >> The original integrated radios are 30* but they're EOLed
>> 
>> 
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> 
>> >>>
>> >>
>> 

[AFMUG] Looks like 60GHz may be our next frontier

[Rory Conaway]

http://www2.imec.be/be_en/press/imec-news/60ghz-beamforming-tranceiver-28nmcmos.html

Rory Conaway * Triad Wireless * CEO
4226 S. 37th Street * Phoenix * AZ 85040
602-426-0542
r...@triadwireless.net
www.triadwireless.net

"In Baseball Heaven  The balls in the batting cage pick themselves up."  - 
Lessons from Baseball

Re: [AFMUG] Dummy switch

[David]

Zyxel switches. We use the 8 port ones and they are solid. Used to to
trendnet, but would need a reset once a year or so. Sucks when they are
behind a desk or a wall you cant get to.

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Josh Reynolds 
wrote:

> Ubiquiti toughswitch 5 port? Like $80. Not "dumb" though
>
> I wouldn't recommend the 5 or 8 port for serious WISP core use, but
> they are decent edge devices.
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Brian Sullivan
>  wrote:
> > Looking for the best 5-8 port dummy switch that wont break the bank.  <
> $100
> > Tried TP-Link and Trendnet with poor results.
>



-- 
David Kunat

Re: [AFMUG] Netonix and MPLS

[Stefan Englhardt]

Works. You need to set MTU on all participating ports. Then netonix just passes 
the packets through.


 Ursprüngliche Nachricht 
Von: Michael Gawlowski  
Datum: 15.04.2016  20:16  (GMT+01:00) 
An: af@afmug.com 
Betreff: [AFMUG] Netonix and MPLS 

Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP

[chuck]

Open waveguides have about 10 dB gain and about a 50 degree pattern.  

From: Josh Reynolds 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 10:47 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP

I like the horn design because they're very clean as far as antenna coverage 
goes, and they're also good for covering both close in customers as well as 
several miles out. Much better than a standard sector.

Also they're small "A F", but solidly built. Low wind load means you can put 
more of them on a micropop 25G.

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

  People seem to forget that gain is inversely proportional to coverage area. A 
sector that moves the vertical beamwidth from 4 degrees to 90 degrees will have 
a very detrimental effect on gain.

  That said, the lack of gain everywhere outside of the intended area is 
non-existent, meaning much lower noise.




  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions

  Midwest Internet Exchange

  The Brothers WISP






--

  From: "Josh Reynolds" 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 11:32:11 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP 


  They're great for 802.11ac style micropops

  Good vertical coverage though, much better than a sector. Clean
  beamwidth / edges.

  On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Josh Luthman
   wrote:
  > It's another option anyway =)
  >
  > I'm kind of liking the horn antenna, but the gain is low.  A 90* is only
  > 10dbi but a 40* is 16dbi.  Or the 50* at 14dbi.
  >
  >
  > Josh Luthman
  > Office: 937-552-2340
  > Direct: 937-552-2343
  > 1100 Wayne St
  > Suite 1337
  > Troy, OH 45373
  >
  > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Jeremy  wrote:
  >>
  >> Nevermind, I missed the "short of buying a connectorized AP" part.  Also,
  >> these are small in physical size, but not so much in beamwidth.
  >>
  >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Jeremy  wrote:
  >>>
  >>> AM-M-V5G-TI
  >>>
  >>>
  >>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Gino Villarini 
  >>> wrote:
  
   ebay is your friend
  
   On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Gino Villarini 
   wrote:
  >
  > blessed that you can use 40 mhz...
  >
  > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Adam Moffett 
  > wrote:
  >>
  >> Those only have 100mbps ethernet, correct?  On a 40mhz channel they
  >> can do 180mbps+ aggregate which is why I've been using the Force110 
for the
  >> little sites.
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >> On 4/15/2016 11:04 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
  >>
  >> If you dont need gps syc, just do a Epmp 1000 integrated...
  >>
  >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Josh Luthman
  >>  wrote:
  >>>
  >>> Force 180.  It's more gain, very narrow azimuth (great for a CPE).
  >>> It's the same thing turned 90*.
  >>>
  >>>
  >>> Josh Luthman
  >>> Office: 937-552-2340
  >>> Direct: 937-552-2343
  >>> 1100 Wayne St
  >>> Suite 1337
  >>> Troy, OH 45373
  >>>
  >>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Brian Sullivan
  >>>  wrote:
  
   I guess I fell asleep at the ePMP wheel, why would they EOL these?
  
   On 4/14/2016 5:30 PM, George Skorup wrote:
  >
  > We bought a bunch of integrated 5GHz radios and keep them in a safe
  > place for this very reason.
  >
  > On 4/14/2016 5:28 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
  >>
  >> Does anyone have a suggestion for a small AP antenna?  Previously
  >> with Ubnt we would do an NSM5.  This would give us 45*.  The use 
case is
  >> just to service a few homes around the corner from the trees.
  >>
  >> The original integrated radios are 30* but they're EOLed
  
  
  >>>
  >>
  >>
  >
  
  >>>
  >>
  >

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[Jason Wilson]

Scott, I am an IPPay client,  email privately your decision to move.

Jason


Jason Wilson
Remotely Located
Providing High Speed Internet to out of the way places.
530-651-1736
530-748-9608 Cell
www.remotelylocated.com

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Josh Reynolds 
wrote:

> Authorize.net?
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Scott Vander Dussen
>  wrote:
> > Without all the nasty details, I'm completely done doing business with
> IPPay. Any recommendations for alternatives?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > 'S
> >
> > Sent mobile!
>

[AFMUG] Netonix and MPLS

[Michael Gawlowski]

Anyone have experience passing an MPLS circuit through a Netonix?  We have 1G 
fiber from the provider and would like to run that into the Netonix and out the 
48v POE port to the customer but it will not pass traffic.  I have this working 
through a Mikrotik (without POE) by putting the SFP and an Ethernet port in the 
same bridge group and then powering through the POE injector.  What is the 
difference between a bridge group on the MikroTik and the Netonix VLAN1?  I 
already checked the MTU size (increased to 1598) and that did not help.

Thanks,
Mike

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[Josh Reynolds]

Authorize.net?

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Scott Vander Dussen
 wrote:
> Without all the nasty details, I'm completely done doing business with IPPay. 
> Any recommendations for alternatives?
>
> Thanks,
> 'S
>
> Sent mobile!

Re: [AFMUG] Dummy switch

[Josh Reynolds]

Ubiquiti toughswitch 5 port? Like $80. Not "dumb" though

I wouldn't recommend the 5 or 8 port for serious WISP core use, but
they are decent edge devices.

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Brian Sullivan
 wrote:
> Looking for the best 5-8 port dummy switch that wont break the bank.  < $100
> Tried TP-Link and Trendnet with poor results.

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[Josh Luthman]

Propay?


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

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Scott Vander Dussen 
wrote:

> Without all the nasty details, I'm completely done doing business with
> IPPay. Any recommendations for alternatives?
>
> Thanks,
> 'S
>
> Sent mobile!

[AFMUG] Merchant services

[Scott Vander Dussen]

Without all the nasty details, I'm completely done doing business with IPPay. 
Any recommendations for alternatives?

Thanks,
'S

Sent mobile!

Re: [AFMUG] Dummy switch

[Josh Luthman]

For 5 and 8 port switches I've always gotten the cheapest on Newegg.
Rosewill is the brand I last bought.  They work extremely well for their
price and work "good enough" for most cases.  At a tower I'd suggest an
RB750 for the additional capability.


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

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Brian Sullivan 
wrote:

> Looking for the best 5-8 port dummy switch that wont break the bank.  <
> $100
> Tried TP-Link and Trendnet with poor results.
>

Re: [AFMUG] AlfoPlus2

[Keefe John]

What's the price?

Maybe they're talking aggregate throughput.

Keefe

On 4/15/2016 12:47 PM, Peter Kranz wrote:


Has anyone worked with the SIAE AlfoPlus2 yet? They promise �ALFOplus2 
full outdoor solution offers 2Gbps guaranteed throughput, enabling 
successful launch of LTE, by providing best TCO while boosting 
capacity and availability of the network.�


And

�first full outdoor supporting up to two channels at 80/112MHz in 
single ODU�


I can�t quite figure out how they are getting 2 Gbps..

1x80Mhz Channel at 2048QAM = 623 Mbps in my book

2x80Mhz Channel at 2048QAM = 1245 Mbps

So are they really using 4 channels?

Channel 1 HxV for 1245

Channel 2 HxV for 1245

Total = 2490 Mbps..

*Peter Kranz
*www.UnwiredLtd.com 
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com 

Re: [AFMUG] Dummy switch

[George Skorup]

MikroTik 750? I guess all you can get now is the Hex/750Gr2.

On 4/15/2016 12:44 PM, Brian Sullivan wrote:
Looking for the best 5-8 port dummy switch that wont break the bank.  
< $100

Tried TP-Link and Trendnet with poor results.

[AFMUG] AlfoPlus2

[Peter Kranz]

Has anyone worked with the SIAE AlfoPlus2 yet? They promise "ALFOplus2 full
outdoor solution offers 2Gbps guaranteed throughput, enabling successful
launch of LTE, by providing best TCO while boosting capacity and
availability of the network."

 

And

 

"first full outdoor supporting up to two channels at 80/112MHz in single
ODU"

 

I can't quite figure out how they are getting 2 Gbps..

 

1x80Mhz Channel at 2048QAM = 623 Mbps in my book

2x80Mhz Channel at 2048QAM = 1245 Mbps 

 

So are they really using 4 channels?

 

Channel 1 HxV for 1245

Channel 2 HxV for 1245

 

Total = 2490 Mbps..

 

Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com  
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com  

 

[AFMUG] Dummy switch

[Brian Sullivan]

Looking for the best 5-8 port dummy switch that wont break the bank.  < $100
Tried TP-Link and Trendnet with poor results.

Re: [AFMUG] 80 GHz manufacturers

[Daniel White]

Aviat

Huawei

Lightpointe



Daniel White

Managing Director – Hardware Distribution Sales

ConVergence Technologies

Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590

  dwh...@converge-tech.com



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 1:27 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 80 GHz manufacturers



And Alcoma, which is, I think, Czech...

http://www.alcoma.com/



On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Eric Kuhnke  > wrote:

oh and I forgot Elva-1, the russians with the 1 and 10GbE FDD radio.



On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Josh Reynolds  > wrote:

Dragonwave (Harmony E-Band)


On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Eric Kuhnke  > wrote:
> Bridgewave
>
> E-band
>
> Siklu
>
> SIAE
>
> NEC (rumors are that internally it is a Bridgewave/REMEC radio)
>
> Intracom Telecom
>
> Fujitsu (again rumors that this is OEMed from somewhere else)
>
> Gigabeam (defunct)
>
> Ericsson
>
> Fastback Networks
>
> Ceragon
>
>
>
> am I missing anyone?







---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[AFMUG] for sale, brand new items.

[David]

*Rocket dish Radome's*. Ubiquiti brand. 3ft and 2ft. Brand new.

I have approximately 15 of each size to sell. Will sell cheap. Make an
offer. I have too many!


*AirFiber 2X* - I have a pair brand new in box. Never used. $425 each


*Netonix 12 port DC switch. WS-12-250-DC
* Brand new sealed
in box never opened. I have two. $350 each.

*LBE-M5-23 *Brand new in box sealed. $38 each. Bought too many.




-- 
David Kunat

Re: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?

[Adam Moffett]

Since your kleptocracy platform won't be popular, what story will you 
tell in order to get elected?


How will you sell your plan to the legislative branch who will actually 
have to make it law?


I just don't know if this plan has been thought through very thoroughly.
https://youtu.be/93B072j-E3I?t=8



On 4/15/2016 12:55 PM, Glen Waldrop wrote:

I want to get in first and ask to be VP with a cut of the profits...
*From:* That One Guy /sarcasm 
*Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2016 11:52 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?
Thats just stupid. When Im president, I will just do away with that 
funny business. Im still going to raise taxes to 90 percent, but im 
not redistributing that to anybody but me.
I dont know much about the cable tv industry or its actual 
infrastructure obviously
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Josh Reynolds > wrote:


It IS delivered to the customer via the ISP, but it's encrypted due to
content / rebroadcast rights blah blah blah

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:44 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
> wrote:
> Well, I learned something. I just assume all content was only
delivered to
> the service provider, and then the service provider handed it to the
> consumer via their delivery infrastructure. That would make more
sense to
> me.
>
>
> I just never saw entertainment (internet included) as being
something worthy
> of any federal attention
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Josh Reynolds
>
> wrote:
>>
>> It's a bit of a mess really.
>>
>> You have inbound content feeds or peering, which is often
encrypted.
>> This hits their different "content servers" in your network
that you
>> often have no control over. A customer ONT has a list of
channels and
>> encryption keys programmed into it, and it sends off a bunch of
>> multicast join requests for the content to these content
servers. The
>> content is end-end encrypted. You're kind of a dumb pipe in this
>> scenario.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:34 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
>>
>> >
wrote:
>> > maybe i misunderstand how this works, I assumed the service
provider
>> > gets
>> > the content, however they get the content, then delivers the
content on
>> > their own system to the set top box. Are you saying the
content provider
>> > delivers the content directly to the consumer set top box
currently just
>> > transiting the service provider network?
>> >
>> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Josh Reynolds
>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I have no idea what you just said.
>> >>
>> >> Currently, content providers are using proprietary DRM (in
many cases)
>> >> to send content feeds.
>> >>
>> >> For instance, we have 5 content providers and our own sat
farm now.
>> >> Each one has a different demarc box for encryption and keys,
and we
>> >> have to manage keys for content for each user and each set
top. It's a
>> >> fucking nightmare. We also are limited to a handful of set
tops that
>> >> will work with their systems.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:24 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > Forcing providers from using proprietary technology on their
>> >> > infrastructure
>> >> > to maximize performance of their service into hammering a
square peg
>> >> > into a
>> >> > round hole so everybody has a square peg will not turn out
well. It
>> >> > will
>> >> > however ensure that digital theft becomes a much simpler
process, so
>> >> > thats
>> >> > always good.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:16 AM, > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you actually read the FCC document, I cannot help but
thinking
>> >> >> this
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> almost forcing al la carte on the cable providers.  Looks
like good
>> >> >> stuff to
>> >> >> me.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> From: That One Guy /sarcasm
>> >> >> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 9:44 AM
>> >> >> To: af@afmug.com 
>> >> >> Subject: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/04/15/obama-is-urging-the-fcc-to-open-up-the-cable-box-so-you-can-watch-tv-how-you-really-want/
>> >> >>
>> >> >> First world 

Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP

[Mike Hammett]

Micro POPs, urban deployments, etc. 

I'm assuming once you leave the horn design they're using, you no longer have 
that clean pattern, which then defeats the purpose. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Mathew Howard"  
To: "af"  
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 11:55:37 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP 


Right, but most of the time I don't care about, or even want a 90 degree 
vertical beam. I can definitely see a lot of potential for 50 degree and under 
horns, but I just can't see a lot of practical uses for the 90 with such low 
gain. 



On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




People seem to forget that gain is inversely proportional to coverage area. A 
sector that moves the vertical beamwidth from 4 degrees to 90 degrees will have 
a very detrimental effect on gain. 

That said, the lack of gain everywhere outside of the intended area is 
non-existent, meaning much lower noise. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Josh Reynolds" < j...@kyneticwifi.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 11:32:11 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP 



They're great for 802.11ac style micropops 

Good vertical coverage though, much better than a sector. Clean 
beamwidth / edges. 

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Josh Luthman 
< j...@imaginenetworksllc.com > wrote: 
> It's another option anyway =) 
> 
> I'm kind of liking the horn antenna, but the gain is low. A 90* is only 
> 10dbi but a 40* is 16dbi. Or the 50* at 14dbi. 
> 
> 
> Josh Luthman 
> Office: 937-552-2340 
> Direct: 937-552-2343 
> 1100 Wayne St 
> Suite 1337 
> Troy, OH 45373 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Jeremy < jeremysmi...@gmail.com > wrote: 
>> 
>> Nevermind, I missed the "short of buying a connectorized AP" part. Also, 
>> these are small in physical size, but not so much in beamwidth. 
>> 
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Jeremy < jeremysmi...@gmail.com > wrote: 
>>> 
>>> AM-M-V5G-TI 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Gino Villarini < ginovi...@gmail.com > 
>>> wrote: 
 
 ebay is your friend 
 
 On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Gino Villarini < ginovi...@gmail.com > 
 wrote: 
> 
> blessed that you can use 40 mhz... 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Adam Moffett < dmmoff...@gmail.com > 
> wrote: 
>> 
>> Those only have 100mbps ethernet, correct? On a 40mhz channel they 
>> can do 180mbps+ aggregate which is why I've been using the Force110 for 
>> the 
>> little sites. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/15/2016 11:04 AM, Gino Villarini wrote: 
>> 
>> If you dont need gps syc, just do a Epmp 1000 integrated... 
>> 
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Josh Luthman 
>> < j...@imaginenetworksllc.com > wrote: 
>>> 
>>> Force 180. It's more gain, very narrow azimuth (great for a CPE). 
>>> It's the same thing turned 90*. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Josh Luthman 
>>> Office: 937-552-2340 
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 
>>> 1100 Wayne St 
>>> Suite 1337 
>>> Troy, OH 45373 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Brian Sullivan 
>>> < installe...@foxvalley.net > wrote: 
 
 I guess I fell asleep at the ePMP wheel, why would they EOL these? 
 
 On 4/14/2016 5:30 PM, George Skorup wrote: 
> 
> We bought a bunch of integrated 5GHz radios and keep them in a safe 
> place for this very reason. 
> 
> On 4/14/2016 5:28 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: 
>> 
>> Does anyone have a suggestion for a small AP antenna? Previously 
>> with Ubnt we would do an NSM5. This would give us 45*. The use case 
>> is 
>> just to service a few homes around the corner from the trees. 
>> 
>> The original integrated radios are 30* but they're EOLed 
 
 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
 
>>> 
>> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?

[Glen Waldrop]

I want to get in first and ask to be VP with a cut of the profits...



From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 11:52 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?

Thats just stupid. When Im president, I will just do away with that funny 
business. Im still going to raise taxes to 90 percent, but im not 
redistributing that to anybody but me. 

I dont know much about the cable tv industry or its actual infrastructure 
obviously




On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:

  It IS delivered to the customer via the ISP, but it's encrypted due to
  content / rebroadcast rights blah blah blah

  On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:44 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
   wrote:
  > Well, I learned something. I just assume all content was only delivered to
  > the service provider, and then the service provider handed it to the
  > consumer via their delivery infrastructure. That would make more sense to
  > me.
  >
  >
  > I just never saw entertainment (internet included) as being something worthy
  > of any federal attention
  >
  > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Josh Reynolds 

  > wrote:
  >>
  >> It's a bit of a mess really.
  >>
  >> You have inbound content feeds or peering, which is often encrypted.
  >> This hits their different "content servers" in your network that you
  >> often have no control over. A customer ONT has a list of channels and
  >> encryption keys programmed into it, and it sends off a bunch of
  >> multicast join requests for the content to these content servers. The
  >> content is end-end encrypted. You're kind of a dumb pipe in this
  >> scenario.
  >>
  >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:34 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
  >>
  >>  wrote:
  >> > maybe i misunderstand how this works, I assumed the service provider
  >> > gets
  >> > the content, however they get the content, then delivers the content on
  >> > their own system to the set top box. Are you saying the content provider
  >> > delivers the content directly to the consumer set top box currently just
  >> > transiting the service provider network?
  >> >
  >> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Josh Reynolds 
  >> > wrote:
  >> >>
  >> >> I have no idea what you just said.
  >> >>
  >> >> Currently, content providers are using proprietary DRM (in many cases)
  >> >> to send content feeds.
  >> >>
  >> >> For instance, we have 5 content providers and our own sat farm now.
  >> >> Each one has a different demarc box for encryption and keys, and we
  >> >> have to manage keys for content for each user and each set top. It's a
  >> >> fucking nightmare. We also are limited to a handful of set tops that
  >> >> will work with their systems.
  >> >>
  >> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:24 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
  >> >>  wrote:
  >> >> > Forcing providers from using proprietary technology on their
  >> >> > infrastructure
  >> >> > to maximize performance of their service into hammering a square peg
  >> >> > into a
  >> >> > round hole so everybody has a square peg will not turn out well. It
  >> >> > will
  >> >> > however ensure that digital theft becomes a much simpler process, so
  >> >> > thats
  >> >> > always good.
  >> >> >
  >> >> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:16 AM,  wrote:
  >> >> >>
  >> >> >> If you actually read the FCC document, I cannot help but thinking
  >> >> >> this
  >> >> >> is
  >> >> >> almost forcing al la carte on the cable providers.  Looks like good
  >> >> >> stuff to
  >> >> >> me.
  >> >> >>
  >> >> >> From: That One Guy /sarcasm
  >> >> >> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 9:44 AM
  >> >> >> To: af@afmug.com
  >> >> >> Subject: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?
  >> >> >>
  >> >> >>
  >> >> >>
  >> >> >>
  >> >> >> 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/04/15/obama-is-urging-the-fcc-to-open-up-the-cable-box-so-you-can-watch-tv-how-you-really-want/
  >> >> >>
  >> >> >> First world problems.
  >> >> >>
  >> >> >> --
  >> >> >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your
  >> >> >> team
  >> >> >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
  >> >> >
  >> >> >
  >> >> >
  >> >> >
  >> >> > --
  >> >> > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your
  >> >> > team
  >> >> > as
  >> >> > part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
  >> >
  >> >
  >> >
  >> >
  >> > --
  >> > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
  >> > as
  >> > part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > --
  > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
  > part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.





-- 

If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as 
part of yourself you have already 

Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP

[Mathew Howard]

Right, but most of the time I don't care about, or even want a 90 degree
vertical beam. I can definitely see a lot of potential for 50 degree and
under horns, but I just can't see a lot of practical uses for the 90 with
such low gain.

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> People seem to forget that gain is inversely proportional to coverage
> area. A sector that moves the vertical beamwidth from 4 degrees to 90
> degrees will have a very detrimental effect on gain.
>
> That said, the lack of gain everywhere outside of the intended area is
> non-existent, meaning much lower noise.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Josh Reynolds" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, April 15, 2016 11:32:11 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP
>
>
> They're great for 802.11ac style micropops
>
> Good vertical coverage though, much better than a sector. Clean
> beamwidth / edges.
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Josh Luthman
>  wrote:
> > It's another option anyway =)
> >
> > I'm kind of liking the horn antenna, but the gain is low.  A 90* is only
> > 10dbi but a 40* is 16dbi.  Or the 50* at 14dbi.
> >
> >
> > Josh Luthman
> > Office: 937-552-2340
> > Direct: 937-552-2343
> > 1100 Wayne St
> > Suite 1337
> > Troy, OH 45373
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Jeremy  wrote:
> >>
> >> Nevermind, I missed the "short of buying a connectorized AP" part.
> Also,
> >> these are small in physical size, but not so much in beamwidth.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Jeremy 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> AM-M-V5G-TI
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Gino Villarini 
> >>> wrote:
> 
>  ebay is your friend
> 
>  On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Gino Villarini  >
>  wrote:
> >
> > blessed that you can use 40 mhz...
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Adam Moffett 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Those only have 100mbps ethernet, correct?  On a 40mhz channel they
> >> can do 180mbps+ aggregate which is why I've been using the Force110
> for the
> >> little sites.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/15/2016 11:04 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
> >>
> >> If you dont need gps syc, just do a Epmp 1000 integrated...
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Josh Luthman
> >>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Force 180.  It's more gain, very narrow azimuth (great for a CPE).
> >>> It's the same thing turned 90*.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Josh Luthman
> >>> Office: 937-552-2340
> >>> Direct: 937-552-2343
> >>> 1100 Wayne St
> >>> Suite 1337
> >>> Troy, OH 45373
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Brian Sullivan
> >>>  wrote:
> 
>  I guess I fell asleep at the ePMP wheel, why would they EOL these?
> 
>  On 4/14/2016 5:30 PM, George Skorup wrote:
> >
> > We bought a bunch of integrated 5GHz radios and keep them in a
> safe
> > place for this very reason.
> >
> > On 4/14/2016 5:28 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> >>
> >> Does anyone have a suggestion for a small AP antenna?
> Previously
> >> with Ubnt we would do an NSM5.  This would give us 45*.  The
> use case is
> >> just to service a few homes around the corner from the trees.
> >>
> >> The original integrated radios are 30* but they're EOLed
> 
> 
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP

[Mike Hammett]

People seem to forget that gain is inversely proportional to coverage area. A 
sector that moves the vertical beamwidth from 4 degrees to 90 degrees will have 
a very detrimental effect on gain. 

That said, the lack of gain everywhere outside of the intended area is 
non-existent, meaning much lower noise. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Josh Reynolds"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 11:32:11 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP 

They're great for 802.11ac style micropops 

Good vertical coverage though, much better than a sector. Clean 
beamwidth / edges. 

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Josh Luthman 
 wrote: 
> It's another option anyway =) 
> 
> I'm kind of liking the horn antenna, but the gain is low. A 90* is only 
> 10dbi but a 40* is 16dbi. Or the 50* at 14dbi. 
> 
> 
> Josh Luthman 
> Office: 937-552-2340 
> Direct: 937-552-2343 
> 1100 Wayne St 
> Suite 1337 
> Troy, OH 45373 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Jeremy  wrote: 
>> 
>> Nevermind, I missed the "short of buying a connectorized AP" part. Also, 
>> these are small in physical size, but not so much in beamwidth. 
>> 
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Jeremy  wrote: 
>>> 
>>> AM-M-V5G-TI 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Gino Villarini  
>>> wrote: 
 
 ebay is your friend 
 
 On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Gino Villarini  
 wrote: 
> 
> blessed that you can use 40 mhz... 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Adam Moffett  
> wrote: 
>> 
>> Those only have 100mbps ethernet, correct? On a 40mhz channel they 
>> can do 180mbps+ aggregate which is why I've been using the Force110 for 
>> the 
>> little sites. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/15/2016 11:04 AM, Gino Villarini wrote: 
>> 
>> If you dont need gps syc, just do a Epmp 1000 integrated... 
>> 
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Josh Luthman 
>>  wrote: 
>>> 
>>> Force 180. It's more gain, very narrow azimuth (great for a CPE). 
>>> It's the same thing turned 90*. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Josh Luthman 
>>> Office: 937-552-2340 
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 
>>> 1100 Wayne St 
>>> Suite 1337 
>>> Troy, OH 45373 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Brian Sullivan 
>>>  wrote: 
 
 I guess I fell asleep at the ePMP wheel, why would they EOL these? 
 
 On 4/14/2016 5:30 PM, George Skorup wrote: 
> 
> We bought a bunch of integrated 5GHz radios and keep them in a safe 
> place for this very reason. 
> 
> On 4/14/2016 5:28 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: 
>> 
>> Does anyone have a suggestion for a small AP antenna? Previously 
>> with Ubnt we would do an NSM5. This would give us 45*. The use case 
>> is 
>> just to service a few homes around the corner from the trees. 
>> 
>> The original integrated radios are 30* but they're EOLed 
 
 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
 
>>> 
>> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

Well, I learned something. I just assume all content was only delivered to
the service provider, and then the service provider handed it to the
consumer via their delivery infrastructure. That would make more sense to
me.


I just never saw entertainment (internet included) as being something
worthy of any federal attention

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Josh Reynolds 
wrote:

> It's a bit of a mess really.
>
> You have inbound content feeds or peering, which is often encrypted.
> This hits their different "content servers" in your network that you
> often have no control over. A customer ONT has a list of channels and
> encryption keys programmed into it, and it sends off a bunch of
> multicast join requests for the content to these content servers. The
> content is end-end encrypted. You're kind of a dumb pipe in this
> scenario.
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:34 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
>  wrote:
> > maybe i misunderstand how this works, I assumed the service provider gets
> > the content, however they get the content, then delivers the content on
> > their own system to the set top box. Are you saying the content provider
> > delivers the content directly to the consumer set top box currently just
> > transiting the service provider network?
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Josh Reynolds 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I have no idea what you just said.
> >>
> >> Currently, content providers are using proprietary DRM (in many cases)
> >> to send content feeds.
> >>
> >> For instance, we have 5 content providers and our own sat farm now.
> >> Each one has a different demarc box for encryption and keys, and we
> >> have to manage keys for content for each user and each set top. It's a
> >> fucking nightmare. We also are limited to a handful of set tops that
> >> will work with their systems.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:24 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
> >>  wrote:
> >> > Forcing providers from using proprietary technology on their
> >> > infrastructure
> >> > to maximize performance of their service into hammering a square peg
> >> > into a
> >> > round hole so everybody has a square peg will not turn out well. It
> will
> >> > however ensure that digital theft becomes a much simpler process, so
> >> > thats
> >> > always good.
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:16 AM,  wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> If you actually read the FCC document, I cannot help but thinking
> this
> >> >> is
> >> >> almost forcing al la carte on the cable providers.  Looks like good
> >> >> stuff to
> >> >> me.
> >> >>
> >> >> From: That One Guy /sarcasm
> >> >> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 9:44 AM
> >> >> To: af@afmug.com
> >> >> Subject: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/04/15/obama-is-urging-the-fcc-to-open-up-the-cable-box-so-you-can-watch-tv-how-you-really-want/
> >> >>
> >> >> First world problems.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your
> >> >> team
> >> >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your
> team
> >> > as
> >> > part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as
> > part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>



-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

Thats just stupid. When Im president, I will just do away with that funny
business. Im still going to raise taxes to 90 percent, but im not
redistributing that to anybody but me.

I dont know much about the cable tv industry or its actual infrastructure
obviously



On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Josh Reynolds 
wrote:

> It IS delivered to the customer via the ISP, but it's encrypted due to
> content / rebroadcast rights blah blah blah
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:44 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
>  wrote:
> > Well, I learned something. I just assume all content was only delivered
> to
> > the service provider, and then the service provider handed it to the
> > consumer via their delivery infrastructure. That would make more sense to
> > me.
> >
> >
> > I just never saw entertainment (internet included) as being something
> worthy
> > of any federal attention
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Josh Reynolds 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> It's a bit of a mess really.
> >>
> >> You have inbound content feeds or peering, which is often encrypted.
> >> This hits their different "content servers" in your network that you
> >> often have no control over. A customer ONT has a list of channels and
> >> encryption keys programmed into it, and it sends off a bunch of
> >> multicast join requests for the content to these content servers. The
> >> content is end-end encrypted. You're kind of a dumb pipe in this
> >> scenario.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:34 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
> >>
> >>  wrote:
> >> > maybe i misunderstand how this works, I assumed the service provider
> >> > gets
> >> > the content, however they get the content, then delivers the content
> on
> >> > their own system to the set top box. Are you saying the content
> provider
> >> > delivers the content directly to the consumer set top box currently
> just
> >> > transiting the service provider network?
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Josh Reynolds  >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I have no idea what you just said.
> >> >>
> >> >> Currently, content providers are using proprietary DRM (in many
> cases)
> >> >> to send content feeds.
> >> >>
> >> >> For instance, we have 5 content providers and our own sat farm now.
> >> >> Each one has a different demarc box for encryption and keys, and we
> >> >> have to manage keys for content for each user and each set top. It's
> a
> >> >> fucking nightmare. We also are limited to a handful of set tops that
> >> >> will work with their systems.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:24 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> > Forcing providers from using proprietary technology on their
> >> >> > infrastructure
> >> >> > to maximize performance of their service into hammering a square
> peg
> >> >> > into a
> >> >> > round hole so everybody has a square peg will not turn out well. It
> >> >> > will
> >> >> > however ensure that digital theft becomes a much simpler process,
> so
> >> >> > thats
> >> >> > always good.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:16 AM,  wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If you actually read the FCC document, I cannot help but thinking
> >> >> >> this
> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> almost forcing al la carte on the cable providers.  Looks like
> good
> >> >> >> stuff to
> >> >> >> me.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> From: That One Guy /sarcasm
> >> >> >> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 9:44 AM
> >> >> >> To: af@afmug.com
> >> >> >> Subject: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/04/15/obama-is-urging-the-fcc-to-open-up-the-cable-box-so-you-can-watch-tv-how-you-really-want/
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> First world problems.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see
> your
> >> >> >> team
> >> >> >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your
> >> >> > team
> >> >> > as
> >> >> > part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your
> team
> >> > as
> >> > part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as
> > part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>



-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?

[Josh Reynolds]

It IS delivered to the customer via the ISP, but it's encrypted due to
content / rebroadcast rights blah blah blah

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:44 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
 wrote:
> Well, I learned something. I just assume all content was only delivered to
> the service provider, and then the service provider handed it to the
> consumer via their delivery infrastructure. That would make more sense to
> me.
>
>
> I just never saw entertainment (internet included) as being something worthy
> of any federal attention
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Josh Reynolds 
> wrote:
>>
>> It's a bit of a mess really.
>>
>> You have inbound content feeds or peering, which is often encrypted.
>> This hits their different "content servers" in your network that you
>> often have no control over. A customer ONT has a list of channels and
>> encryption keys programmed into it, and it sends off a bunch of
>> multicast join requests for the content to these content servers. The
>> content is end-end encrypted. You're kind of a dumb pipe in this
>> scenario.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:34 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
>>
>>  wrote:
>> > maybe i misunderstand how this works, I assumed the service provider
>> > gets
>> > the content, however they get the content, then delivers the content on
>> > their own system to the set top box. Are you saying the content provider
>> > delivers the content directly to the consumer set top box currently just
>> > transiting the service provider network?
>> >
>> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Josh Reynolds 
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I have no idea what you just said.
>> >>
>> >> Currently, content providers are using proprietary DRM (in many cases)
>> >> to send content feeds.
>> >>
>> >> For instance, we have 5 content providers and our own sat farm now.
>> >> Each one has a different demarc box for encryption and keys, and we
>> >> have to manage keys for content for each user and each set top. It's a
>> >> fucking nightmare. We also are limited to a handful of set tops that
>> >> will work with their systems.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:24 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> > Forcing providers from using proprietary technology on their
>> >> > infrastructure
>> >> > to maximize performance of their service into hammering a square peg
>> >> > into a
>> >> > round hole so everybody has a square peg will not turn out well. It
>> >> > will
>> >> > however ensure that digital theft becomes a much simpler process, so
>> >> > thats
>> >> > always good.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:16 AM,  wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you actually read the FCC document, I cannot help but thinking
>> >> >> this
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> almost forcing al la carte on the cable providers.  Looks like good
>> >> >> stuff to
>> >> >> me.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> From: That One Guy /sarcasm
>> >> >> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 9:44 AM
>> >> >> To: af@afmug.com
>> >> >> Subject: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/04/15/obama-is-urging-the-fcc-to-open-up-the-cable-box-so-you-can-watch-tv-how-you-really-want/
>> >> >>
>> >> >> First world problems.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your
>> >> >> team
>> >> >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your
>> >> > team
>> >> > as
>> >> > part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
>> > as
>> > part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
> part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP

[Josh Reynolds]

I like the horn design because they're very clean as far as antenna
coverage goes, and they're also good for covering both close in customers
as well as several miles out. Much better than a standard sector.

Also they're small "A F", but solidly built. Low wind load means you can
put more of them on a micropop 25G.

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> People seem to forget that gain is inversely proportional to coverage
> area. A sector that moves the vertical beamwidth from 4 degrees to 90
> degrees will have a very detrimental effect on gain.
>
> That said, the lack of gain everywhere outside of the intended area is
> non-existent, meaning much lower noise.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Josh Reynolds" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, April 15, 2016 11:32:11 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP
>
>
> They're great for 802.11ac style micropops
>
> Good vertical coverage though, much better than a sector. Clean
> beamwidth / edges.
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Josh Luthman
>  wrote:
> > It's another option anyway =)
> >
> > I'm kind of liking the horn antenna, but the gain is low.  A 90* is only
> > 10dbi but a 40* is 16dbi.  Or the 50* at 14dbi.
> >
> >
> > Josh Luthman
> > Office: 937-552-2340
> > Direct: 937-552-2343
> > 1100 Wayne St
> > Suite 1337
> > Troy, OH 45373
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Jeremy  wrote:
> >>
> >> Nevermind, I missed the "short of buying a connectorized AP" part.
> Also,
> >> these are small in physical size, but not so much in beamwidth.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Jeremy 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> AM-M-V5G-TI
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Gino Villarini 
> >>> wrote:
> 
>  ebay is your friend
> 
>  On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Gino Villarini  >
>  wrote:
> >
> > blessed that you can use 40 mhz...
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Adam Moffett 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Those only have 100mbps ethernet, correct?  On a 40mhz channel they
> >> can do 180mbps+ aggregate which is why I've been using the Force110
> for the
> >> little sites.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/15/2016 11:04 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
> >>
> >> If you dont need gps syc, just do a Epmp 1000 integrated...
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Josh Luthman
> >>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Force 180.  It's more gain, very narrow azimuth (great for a CPE).
> >>> It's the same thing turned 90*.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Josh Luthman
> >>> Office: 937-552-2340
> >>> Direct: 937-552-2343
> >>> 1100 Wayne St
> >>> Suite 1337
> >>> Troy, OH 45373
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Brian Sullivan
> >>>  wrote:
> 
>  I guess I fell asleep at the ePMP wheel, why would they EOL these?
> 
>  On 4/14/2016 5:30 PM, George Skorup wrote:
> >
> > We bought a bunch of integrated 5GHz radios and keep them in a
> safe
> > place for this very reason.
> >
> > On 4/14/2016 5:28 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> >>
> >> Does anyone have a suggestion for a small AP antenna?
> Previously
> >> with Ubnt we would do an NSM5.  This would give us 45*.  The
> use case is
> >> just to service a few homes around the corner from the trees.
> >>
> >> The original integrated radios are 30* but they're EOLed
> 
> 
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?

[Josh Reynolds]

It's a bit of a mess really.

You have inbound content feeds or peering, which is often encrypted.
This hits their different "content servers" in your network that you
often have no control over. A customer ONT has a list of channels and
encryption keys programmed into it, and it sends off a bunch of
multicast join requests for the content to these content servers. The
content is end-end encrypted. You're kind of a dumb pipe in this
scenario.

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:34 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
 wrote:
> maybe i misunderstand how this works, I assumed the service provider gets
> the content, however they get the content, then delivers the content on
> their own system to the set top box. Are you saying the content provider
> delivers the content directly to the consumer set top box currently just
> transiting the service provider network?
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Josh Reynolds 
> wrote:
>>
>> I have no idea what you just said.
>>
>> Currently, content providers are using proprietary DRM (in many cases)
>> to send content feeds.
>>
>> For instance, we have 5 content providers and our own sat farm now.
>> Each one has a different demarc box for encryption and keys, and we
>> have to manage keys for content for each user and each set top. It's a
>> fucking nightmare. We also are limited to a handful of set tops that
>> will work with their systems.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:24 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
>>  wrote:
>> > Forcing providers from using proprietary technology on their
>> > infrastructure
>> > to maximize performance of their service into hammering a square peg
>> > into a
>> > round hole so everybody has a square peg will not turn out well. It will
>> > however ensure that digital theft becomes a much simpler process, so
>> > thats
>> > always good.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:16 AM,  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> If you actually read the FCC document, I cannot help but thinking this
>> >> is
>> >> almost forcing al la carte on the cable providers.  Looks like good
>> >> stuff to
>> >> me.
>> >>
>> >> From: That One Guy /sarcasm
>> >> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 9:44 AM
>> >> To: af@afmug.com
>> >> Subject: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/04/15/obama-is-urging-the-fcc-to-open-up-the-cable-box-so-you-can-watch-tv-how-you-really-want/
>> >>
>> >> First world problems.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your
>> >> team
>> >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
>> > as
>> > part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
> part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

[AFMUG] FSK Radios For Sale - 900Mhz, 5Ghz, 2.4Ghz $15 Each

[Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc]

It's Friday. Back room is overflowing with FSK gear coming in from the
upgrades.

P9s-P10s All $15 each.

 

Off list if you need some

 

Tyson Burris, President 
Internet Communications Inc. 
739 Commerce Dr. 
Franklin, IN 46131 
  
317-738-0320 Daytime # 
317-412-1540 Cell/Direct # 
Online: www.surfici.net 

 



What can ICI do for you? 


Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP
Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure. 
  
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the 
addressee shown. It contains information that is 
confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, 
dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by 
unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly 
prohibited. 

 

Re: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

maybe i misunderstand how this works, I assumed the service provider gets
the content, however they get the content, then delivers the content on
their own system to the set top box. Are you saying the content provider
delivers the content directly to the consumer set top box currently just
transiting the service provider network?

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Josh Reynolds 
wrote:

> I have no idea what you just said.
>
> Currently, content providers are using proprietary DRM (in many cases)
> to send content feeds.
>
> For instance, we have 5 content providers and our own sat farm now.
> Each one has a different demarc box for encryption and keys, and we
> have to manage keys for content for each user and each set top. It's a
> fucking nightmare. We also are limited to a handful of set tops that
> will work with their systems.
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:24 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
>  wrote:
> > Forcing providers from using proprietary technology on their
> infrastructure
> > to maximize performance of their service into hammering a square peg
> into a
> > round hole so everybody has a square peg will not turn out well. It will
> > however ensure that digital theft becomes a much simpler process, so
> thats
> > always good.
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:16 AM,  wrote:
> >>
> >> If you actually read the FCC document, I cannot help but thinking this
> is
> >> almost forcing al la carte on the cable providers.  Looks like good
> stuff to
> >> me.
> >>
> >> From: That One Guy /sarcasm
> >> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 9:44 AM
> >> To: af@afmug.com
> >> Subject: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/04/15/obama-is-urging-the-fcc-to-open-up-the-cable-box-so-you-can-watch-tv-how-you-really-want/
> >>
> >> First world problems.
> >>
> >> --
> >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as
> > part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>



-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

Forcing providers from using proprietary technology on their infrastructure
to maximize performance of their service into hammering a square peg into a
round hole so everybody has a square peg will not turn out well. It will
however ensure that digital theft becomes a much simpler process, so thats
always good.

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:16 AM,  wrote:

> If you actually read the FCC document, I cannot help but thinking this is
> almost forcing al la carte on the cable providers.  Looks like good stuff
> to me.
>
> *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm 
> *Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2016 9:44 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?
>
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/04/15/obama-is-urging-the-fcc-to-open-up-the-cable-box-so-you-can-watch-tv-how-you-really-want/
>
> First world problems.
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>



-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP

[Jeremy]

AM-M-V5G-TI

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Gino Villarini  wrote:

> ebay is your friend
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Gino Villarini 
> wrote:
>
>> blessed that you can use 40 mhz...
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Adam Moffett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Those only have 100mbps ethernet, correct?  On a 40mhz channel they can
>>> do 180mbps+ aggregate which is why I've been using the Force110 for the
>>> little sites.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/15/2016 11:04 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
>>>
>>> If you dont need gps syc, just do a Epmp 1000 integrated...
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Josh Luthman <
>>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>>
 Force 180.  It's more gain, very narrow azimuth (great for a CPE).
 It's the same thing turned 90*.


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

 On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Brian Sullivan <
 installe...@foxvalley.net> wrote:

> I guess I fell asleep at the ePMP wheel, why would they EOL these?
>
> On 4/14/2016 5:30 PM, George Skorup wrote:
>
>> We bought a bunch of integrated 5GHz radios and keep them in a safe
>> place for this very reason.
>>
>> On 4/14/2016 5:28 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone have a suggestion for a small AP antenna?  Previously
>>> with Ubnt we would do an NSM5.  This would give us 45*.  The use case is
>>> just to service a few homes around the corner from the trees.
>>>
>>> The original integrated radios are 30* but they're EOLed
>>>
>>
>

>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?

[chuck]

If you actually read the FCC document, I cannot help but thinking this is 
almost forcing al la carte on the cable providers.  Looks like good stuff to 
me.  

From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 9:44 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/04/15/obama-is-urging-the-fcc-to-open-up-the-cable-box-so-you-can-watch-tv-how-you-really-want/
 

First world problems.


-- 

If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as 
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] Procera CG NAT

[Josh Reynolds]

It does, actually.

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Gino Villarini  wrote:
> afaik, Procera does not support CG NAT
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Andreas Wiatowski
>  wrote:
>>
>> Anyone using CG NAT with Procera…specifically to supress DDOS?
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> __
>>
>> Andreas Wiatowski | CEO
>>
>> Silo Wireless Inc.
>>
>> Email  andr...@silowireless.com
>>
>> 19 Sage Court
>>
>> Brantford, Ontario N3R 7T4 (CANADA)
>>
>> Tel +1.519.449.5656  Extension-600|Fax +1.519.449.5536 |Toll Free
>> +1.866.727.4138
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Procera CG NAT

[Andreas Wiatowski]

Have you used this product / or using…. Any idea of cost for a 10Gbps appliance?

Cheers,
__
Andreas Wiatowski | CEO
Silo Wireless Inc.
Email  andr...@silowireless.com
19 Sage Court
Brantford, Ontario N3R 7T4 (CANADA)
Tel +1.519.449.5656  Extension-600|Fax +1.519.449.5536 |Toll Free 
+1.866.727.4138

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 11:19 AM
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Procera CG NAT

https://www.corero.com/products/corero-smartwall-threat-defense-system.html

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Andreas Wiatowski 
> wrote:
So what are people doing to do CGN and get around DDOS to a single IP?  We have 
been doing it on the edge, but the minute a single subscriber gets attacked we 
have network impact….. there is no way to suppress, my understanding is that if 
we moved the edge onto the Procera, it can distinguish traffic and suppress an 
attack.

As of late, we get 1 to 2 attacks a week…. We have seen 2.8-4Gbps attacks…we 
have changed the natted address to get around, but even then we sometimes have 
the attack follow to the new address.

This is becoming a nightmare to manage.  If only I could give every customer a 
public!

Cheers,
__
Andreas Wiatowski | CEO
Silo Wireless Inc.
Email  andr...@silowireless.com
19 Sage Court
Brantford, Ontario N3R 7T4 (CANADA)
Tel +1.519.449.5656  
Extension-600|Fax 
+1.519.449.5536 |Toll Free 
+1.866.727.4138

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 11:05 AM
To: Animal Farm >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Procera CG NAT

afaik, Procera does not support CG NAT

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Andreas Wiatowski 
> wrote:
Anyone using CG NAT with Procera…specifically to supress DDOS?

Cheers,
__
Andreas Wiatowski | CEO
Silo Wireless Inc.
Email  andr...@silowireless.com
19 Sage Court
Brantford, Ontario N3R 7T4 (CANADA)
Tel +1.519.449.5656  
Extension-600|Fax 
+1.519.449.5536 |Toll Free 
+1.866.727.4138

Re: [AFMUG] Procera CG NAT

[Andreas Wiatowski]

Tough to find out who is creating the issueour edge can't handle the flood.

Cheers,
__
Andreas Wiatowski | CEO
Silo Wireless Inc.
Email  andr...@silowireless.com
19 Sage Court
Brantford, Ontario N3R 7T4 (CANADA)
Tel +1.519.449.5656  Extension-600|Fax +1.519.449.5536 |Toll Free 
+1.866.727.4138

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 11:24 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Procera CG NAT

On 4/15/16 8:15 AM, Andreas Wiatowski wrote:
> So what are people doing to do CGN and get around DDOS to a single IP?
> We have been doing it on the edge, but the minute a single subscriber 
> gets attacked we have network impact….. there is no way to suppress, 
> my understanding is that if we moved the edge onto the Procera, it can 
> distinguish traffic and suppress an attack.
>
> As of late, we get 1 to 2 attacks a week…. We have seen 2.8-4Gbps 
> attacks…we have changed the natted address to get around, but even 
> then we sometimes have the attack follow to the new address.
>
> This is becoming a nightmare to manage.  If only I could give every 
> customer a public!
>



Many times it's related to online gaming. Have you tried identifying xbox/ps 
users and making them NAT from a separate IP than your non-gaming customer to 
see if it follows them?

~Seth

Re: [AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?

[Jaime Solorza]

Who needs clean water or food when we have free cable?
On Apr 15, 2016 9:44 AM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" 
wrote:

>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/04/15/obama-is-urging-the-fcc-to-open-up-the-cable-box-so-you-can-watch-tv-how-you-really-want/
>
> First world problems.
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>

[AFMUG] ot: this is our priority?

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/04/15/obama-is-urging-the-fcc-to-open-up-the-cable-box-so-you-can-watch-tv-how-you-really-want/

First world problems.

-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] Procera CG NAT

[Seth Mattinen]

On 4/15/16 8:15 AM, Andreas Wiatowski wrote:

So what are people doing to do CGN and get around DDOS to a single IP?
We have been doing it on the edge, but the minute a single subscriber
gets attacked we have network impact….. there is no way to suppress, my
understanding is that if we moved the edge onto the Procera, it can
distinguish traffic and suppress an attack.

As of late, we get 1 to 2 attacks a week…. We have seen 2.8-4Gbps
attacks…we have changed the natted address to get around, but even then
we sometimes have the attack follow to the new address.

This is becoming a nightmare to manage.  If only I could give every
customer a public!





Many times it's related to online gaming. Have you tried identifying 
xbox/ps users and making them NAT from a separate IP than your 
non-gaming customer to see if it follows them?


~Seth

Re: [AFMUG] Procera CG NAT

[Gino Villarini]

https://www.corero.com/products/corero-smartwall-threat-defense-system.html

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Andreas Wiatowski <
andr...@silowireless.com> wrote:

> So what are people doing to do CGN and get around DDOS to a single IP?  We
> have been doing it on the edge, but the minute a single subscriber gets
> attacked we have network impact….. there is no way to suppress, my
> understanding is that if we moved the edge onto the Procera, it can
> distinguish traffic and suppress an attack.
>
>
>
> As of late, we get 1 to 2 attacks a week…. We have seen 2.8-4Gbps
> attacks…we have changed the natted address to get around, but even then we
> sometimes have the attack follow to the new address.
>
>
>
> This is becoming a nightmare to manage.  If only I could give every
> customer a public!
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> __
>
> Andreas Wiatowski | CEO
>
> Silo Wireless Inc.
>
> Email  andr...@silowireless.com
>
> 19 Sage Court
>
> Brantford, Ontario N3R 7T4 (CANADA)
>
> Tel +1.519.449.5656  Extension-600|Fax +1.519.449.5536 |Toll Free
> +1.866.727.4138
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Gino Villarini
> *Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2016 11:05 AM
> *To:* Animal Farm 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Procera CG NAT
>
>
>
> afaik, Procera does not support CG NAT
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Andreas Wiatowski <
> andr...@silowireless.com> wrote:
>
> Anyone using CG NAT with Procera…specifically to supress DDOS?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> __
>
> Andreas Wiatowski | CEO
>
> Silo Wireless Inc.
>
> Email  andr...@silowireless.com
>
> 19 Sage Court
>
> Brantford, Ontario N3R 7T4 (CANADA)
>
> Tel +1.519.449.5656  Extension-600|Fax +1.519.449.5536 |Toll Free
> +1.866.727.4138
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Procera CG NAT

[Andreas Wiatowski]

So what are people doing to do CGN and get around DDOS to a single IP?  We have 
been doing it on the edge, but the minute a single subscriber gets attacked we 
have network impact….. there is no way to suppress, my understanding is that if 
we moved the edge onto the Procera, it can distinguish traffic and suppress an 
attack.

As of late, we get 1 to 2 attacks a week…. We have seen 2.8-4Gbps attacks…we 
have changed the natted address to get around, but even then we sometimes have 
the attack follow to the new address.

This is becoming a nightmare to manage.  If only I could give every customer a 
public!

Cheers,
__
Andreas Wiatowski | CEO
Silo Wireless Inc.
Email  andr...@silowireless.com
19 Sage Court
Brantford, Ontario N3R 7T4 (CANADA)
Tel +1.519.449.5656  Extension-600|Fax +1.519.449.5536 |Toll Free 
+1.866.727.4138

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 11:05 AM
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Procera CG NAT

afaik, Procera does not support CG NAT

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Andreas Wiatowski 
> wrote:
Anyone using CG NAT with Procera…specifically to supress DDOS?

Cheers,
__
Andreas Wiatowski | CEO
Silo Wireless Inc.
Email  andr...@silowireless.com
19 Sage Court
Brantford, Ontario N3R 7T4 (CANADA)
Tel +1.519.449.5656  
Extension-600|Fax 
+1.519.449.5536 |Toll Free 
+1.866.727.4138

Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP

[Gino Villarini]

ebay is your friend

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Gino Villarini 
wrote:

> blessed that you can use 40 mhz...
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Adam Moffett 
> wrote:
>
>> Those only have 100mbps ethernet, correct?  On a 40mhz channel they can
>> do 180mbps+ aggregate which is why I've been using the Force110 for the
>> little sites.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/15/2016 11:04 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
>>
>> If you dont need gps syc, just do a Epmp 1000 integrated...
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Josh Luthman <
>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Force 180.  It's more gain, very narrow azimuth (great for a CPE).  It's
>>> the same thing turned 90*.
>>>
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Brian Sullivan <
>>> installe...@foxvalley.net> wrote:
>>>
 I guess I fell asleep at the ePMP wheel, why would they EOL these?

 On 4/14/2016 5:30 PM, George Skorup wrote:

> We bought a bunch of integrated 5GHz radios and keep them in a safe
> place for this very reason.
>
> On 4/14/2016 5:28 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have a suggestion for a small AP antenna?  Previously
>> with Ubnt we would do an NSM5.  This would give us 45*.  The use case is
>> just to service a few homes around the corner from the trees.
>>
>> The original integrated radios are 30* but they're EOLed
>>
>

>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Small ePMP AP

[Gino Villarini]

blessed that you can use 40 mhz...

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> Those only have 100mbps ethernet, correct?  On a 40mhz channel they can do
> 180mbps+ aggregate which is why I've been using the Force110 for the little
> sites.
>
>
>
> On 4/15/2016 11:04 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
>
> If you dont need gps syc, just do a Epmp 1000 integrated...
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Josh Luthman <
> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>
>> Force 180.  It's more gain, very narrow azimuth (great for a CPE).  It's
>> the same thing turned 90*.
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Brian Sullivan <
>> installe...@foxvalley.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess I fell asleep at the ePMP wheel, why would they EOL these?
>>>
>>> On 4/14/2016 5:30 PM, George Skorup wrote:
>>>
 We bought a bunch of integrated 5GHz radios and keep them in a safe
 place for this very reason.

 On 4/14/2016 5:28 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

> Does anyone have a suggestion for a small AP antenna?  Previously with
> Ubnt we would do an NSM5.  This would give us 45*.  The use case is just 
> to
> service a few homes around the corner from the trees.
>
> The original integrated radios are 30* but they're EOLed
>

>>>
>>
>
>