RE: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen
Rich- Just so we all know where you are coming from and in the interest of Full Disclosure, please tell us your involvement in the Dialcall/Nextel/Motorola/IDEN endeavor- specifically any vested interest in the technology (hint- Patents). -Original Message- Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen I don't know what the beef is. FleetCall bought up in the vicinity of 100 trunking SMR channels in each major metro almost 20 yrs ago. They claimed to the FCC that they could serve significantly more users than the typical 100 users/channel of the current early 90s analog technology. 100 channels at 100 users apiece serves only in the vicinity of 10,000 users. With the iDen technology they ultimately served almost half a million in the same geographic area with the same spectrum. So much for the unneeded technology assessment. Now that they're called NexTel, sure they continue adding whatever remaining licenses they can get their hands on, but the 800 and 900 Trunking and bands are land-locked (no room for expansion), so there's no new technology targeted to this band that I know of. Now that they're merged with Sprint, it's no secret where their new technology is targeted (WiMAX). Rich -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen
While filters can help, the problem that I see is that filters are: 1) expensive and 2) bulky. Last time I checked, a cavity filter for the 902-928 range was roughly $300-$400. I don't see it being practical to install one of these at every customer site! Cavity filters are fine for your broadcast sites, but that is of little help when the 900Mhz paging systems bleed over so much that they deafen the subscriber radios. - Larry - Original Message - From: Mike Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:32 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen Filters fix this problem quite handily. We recommend one on every system needed or not. I don't see an issue here. Mike At 07:07 PM 10/26/2006, you wrote: ISM 902-928. Exact band and Power limit is relevant. Currently, the top 25% of ISM 900 bandwidth (channel 4) is unusable, in MANY areas, due to blead over from 930 Licensed high power gear (500W). If the same thing were to occur at the lower portion of 900 ISM bandwdith, it could kill Channel 1 also, horribly effecting WISPs using unlicenced. They also may be requesting to use higher power on the actual ISM bands, argueing Public Safety is more important than unlicensed use. Iftheir request is granted, specifics should be lsited on how they are going to prevent interference with existing unlicensed band users. Remember that the goal may not only be to use the spectrum. They have benefit in killing off all the 900Mhz WISPs, that could compete with Sprint/Nextel Next generation WiMax type Licensed 700M-900M solutions. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband Mike Cowan Wireless Connections A Division of ACC 166 Milan Ave Norwalk, OH 44857 419-660-6100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.wirelessconnections.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC definitions
We have been advised that providers of internet services are not required to file form 499. However, we were additionally advised that providers of transport services are required to file form 499. We provide transport services in addition to internet services and as such file form 499. I believe we are one of the few if not the only unlicensed fixed wireless operator to file 499. -Matt chris cooper wrote: Does a WISP fall under the designation of a telecommunications carrier even though it isn’t required to file form 499-a? Under definition found at USC title 47,153.40 , it appears that an ISP and in particular a WISP offers telecommunications services and is deemed a “telecommunications carrier” . From The USAC website: To be a telecommunications carrier, the carrier must (1) allow the customer to transmit information of its own design and choosing, without change in the form or content of the information, and (2) provide that capability for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available to the public (i.e., hold itself out to serve indifferently all potential users). USAC defines a carrier as above. They also require that Eligible Telecommunications Carriers file 499-A. As an industry, if we supply telecommunications services, as defined above, directly to a school or library and don’t file the 499 – is that considered breaking the rules? Im caught between a rock and the horns of a dilemma…. Chris -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen
If you have an adjacent channel carrier which is running hundreds of watts of power then you may not have a choice of whether to use the bandpass filter or not. Your system may not operate in the upper part of the 900 MHz band. What happens is that the adjacent carrier will swamp your receiver and your base station will essentially become deaf to your own, much quieter, client radios. The bandpass filter is the sole remedy to this. I think many people use filters by default because they do little harm to your system performance and may mean the difference between your system working or completely failing in the presence of higher-powered adjacent carriers. I currently run Waverider 900 MHz systems and because of this I may have a system which is more sensitive to adjacent carrier swamping than other platforms. I simply do not know about other platforms to say one way or another. I believe Charles has tested several 900 MHz platforms and may be able to expand on this discussion. It is important to note that he may have a bias toward Canopy as he now sells that platform. I can only assume that his testing may have led him, in part, to this platform choice for 900 MHz systems. Care to share your thoughts Charles? If anyone out there has any past experience with swamped 900 MHJz receivers, bandpass filters, different 900 MHz platforms, etc. then please share your thoughts about the use/need for bandpass filters. I would like to know more myself. Scriv Larry Yunker wrote: While filters can help, the problem that I see is that filters are: 1) expensive and 2) bulky. Last time I checked, a cavity filter for the 902-928 range was roughly $300-$400. I don't see it being practical to install one of these at every customer site! Cavity filters are fine for your broadcast sites, but that is of little help when the 900Mhz paging systems bleed over so much that they deafen the subscriber radios. - Larry - Original Message - From: Mike Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:32 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen Filters fix this problem quite handily. We recommend one on every system needed or not. I don't see an issue here. Mike At 07:07 PM 10/26/2006, you wrote: ISM 902-928. Exact band and Power limit is relevant. Currently, the top 25% of ISM 900 bandwidth (channel 4) is unusable, in MANY areas, due to blead over from 930 Licensed high power gear (500W). If the same thing were to occur at the lower portion of 900 ISM bandwdith, it could kill Channel 1 also, horribly effecting WISPs using unlicenced. They also may be requesting to use higher power on the actual ISM bands, argueing Public Safety is more important than unlicensed use. Iftheir request is granted, specifics should be lsited on how they are going to prevent interference with existing unlicensed band users. Remember that the goal may not only be to use the spectrum. They have benefit in killing off all the 900Mhz WISPs, that could compete with Sprint/Nextel Next generation WiMax type Licensed 700M-900M solutions. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband Mike Cowan Wireless Connections A Division of ACC 166 Milan Ave Norwalk, OH 44857 419-660-6100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.wirelessconnections.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC definitions - USF 499a
FCC Form 499a is the form for USF contributions. The FCC has determined that Internet is an Information Service not a telecom service and has thus unregulated all parts of it. (See Brand-X case for a more detailed explanation). Transport, Voice, and Inter-connected VoIP Providers must pay into USF (file a 499a). For more info about the recent FCC USF VoIP ruling: http://www.tmcnet.com/voip/1006/regulation-watch-plan-of-action-for-voip-usf-contributions.htm Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. Matt Liotta wrote: We have been advised that providers of internet services are not required to file form 499. However, we were additionally advised that providers of transport services are required to file form 499. We provide transport services in addition to internet services and as such file form 499. I believe we are one of the few if not the only unlicensed fixed wireless operator to file 499. -Matt chris cooper wrote: Does a WISP fall under the designation of a telecommunications carrier even though it isn’t required to file form 499-a? Under definition found at USC title 47,153.40 , it appears that an ISP and in particular a WISP offers telecommunications services and is deemed a “telecommunications carrier” . From The USAC website: To be a telecommunications carrier, the carrier must (1) allow the customer to transmit information of its own design and choosing, without change in the form or content of the information, and (2) provide that capability for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available to the public (i.e., hold itself out to serve indifferently all potential users). USAC defines a carrier as above. They also require that Eligible Telecommunications Carriers file 499-A. As an industry, if we supply telecommunications services, as defined above, directly to a school or library and don’t file the 499 – is that considered breaking the rules? Im caught between a rock and the horns of a dilemma…. Chris -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen
Cavity Filters create several additional problems 1) Assuming most filters are narrow individual channel widths... It takes away the benefit to move your Radio Freq Channel to stear around interference on the fly. 2) Assuming 1 Filter covers the full width of the Band... The filters add significant loss, 3-4 db, so channels 1,2,3 that may not need the filters get compromised, just to save channel 4. In this business every DB counts. 3) Most filters get installed on the ground, where they can easilly get power and not need water proofing, then requiring large COAX runs to create additional signal loss. However, assuming one has a tower mountable unit, Many CAT5 powered 900M Radios, have the Antenna's built in, with no Coax option to install the filter on. 4) What we found worked best was to use very high grade Sector antennas w/ higher front to back ratios and sharper cut offs (which is hard to accomplish with NLOS 900M, but are a couple brands that accomplish this). These antenna get rid of most of the AP side colocation interference, near equivellent to the filter. Although the filter did a bit better on AP side, it was counter-acted by reducing signal several DB, having negative effects on gaining the required signal based on interference and NLOS foliage degrading CPE signal. And of course combine this with good radios with built-in noise reduction. With that said, I'm not saying a filter can't help in all cases, thats what they were designed for, to help. My point is that the benefit starts to be diminished signifantly compared to the cost. This issue is overyly burdensome to the provider. So the last thing we want to see happen is it get re-created on lower bands of 900Mhz. (iDEN ?) As far as filters If someone wanted to buy one, its a more complicated task than one always realizes. Cavity filters, notch filters, saw filters, Custom built, etc, what to get, and where to buy? Do you have recommendations on which Cavity Filters to use, for outdoor tower mounting? Or do you use the ones that WaveRider sold? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Larry Yunker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 9:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen While filters can help, the problem that I see is that filters are: 1) expensive and 2) bulky. Last time I checked, a cavity filter for the 902-928 range was roughly $300-$400. I don't see it being practical to install one of these at every customer site! Cavity filters are fine for your broadcast sites, but that is of little help when the 900Mhz paging systems bleed over so much that they deafen the subscriber radios. - Larry - Original Message - From: Mike Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:32 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen Filters fix this problem quite handily. We recommend one on every system needed or not. I don't see an issue here. Mike At 07:07 PM 10/26/2006, you wrote: ISM 902-928. Exact band and Power limit is relevant. Currently, the top 25% of ISM 900 bandwidth (channel 4) is unusable, in MANY areas, due to blead over from 930 Licensed high power gear (500W). If the same thing were to occur at the lower portion of 900 ISM bandwdith, it could kill Channel 1 also, horribly effecting WISPs using unlicenced. They also may be requesting to use higher power on the actual ISM bands, argueing Public Safety is more important than unlicensed use. Iftheir request is granted, specifics should be lsited on how they are going to prevent interference with existing unlicensed band users. Remember that the goal may not only be to use the spectrum. They have benefit in killing off all the 900Mhz WISPs, that could compete with Sprint/Nextel Next generation WiMax type Licensed 700M-900M solutions. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband Mike Cowan Wireless Connections A Division of ACC 166 Milan Ave Norwalk, OH 44857 419-660-6100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.wirelessconnections.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] The Gremlin, redux
This problem was mentioned back in May (see http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2006-May/025354.html ) but it's still here, and I thought it might be worthwhile to bounce it off folks again, to see if anyone has any new insights. Occasionally, completely at random, many of our 2.4GHz APs start showing high packet loss (usually 20-30%) and high latency (upwards of ten seconds - not milliseconds, full seconds) for a few minutes at a time. It always clears itself up eventually, usually after a minute or two, but sometimes it won't go away for ten or fifteen minutes. It's especially annoying when it happens in the middle of the day and all those itchy business customers call in at once. Random facts and tidbits: * I've watched our network traffic, using Mikrotik's torch and StarOS' beacon tools, and I don't see anything that looks like a DDOS, either entering or leaving our network. * It doesn't affect all our towers, just most of them. Specifically, our most remote towers (geographically, not in terms of network topology) are safe. * (This is the Lonnie Nunweiler clause) It affects equally towers that are bridged, routed, and hybrid bridged/routed. * I don't think it's a backhaul problem, because towers on several different kinds of backhaul links are affected simultaneously. (We've got a mix of Alvarion and Trango gear for backhauls, and at least one ancient YDI EX-1.) Also, there's no problem talking between tower locations; pings between different APs take 10ms or so, just like they normally do. * It only affects our 2.4GHz customers - folks on 900MHz gear, 5.3GHz, and 5.8GHz connections don't have any issues while things are going sour. Basically, it looks like someone's got a big giant massive something that spews out insane amounts of 2.4GHz interference, that somehow knocks out all our customers within about a fifteen-mile radius, and they turn it on every so often. Does that conclusion sound reasonable? And if it does, what the heck can I do about it? Frustrated, David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen
I'd originally written: The preponderence of NexTel channels are in the private land mobile 806-821/850-865 conventional / trunking band, and a small percentage in the 902-906 trunking band. ... I am most likely off on the numeric band I sure was [numerically off - that is]. What's known as the '900' trunking band runs from 896-902. I was only correct that it is *below* the 900 ISM band, and that it is only 12.5kHz channelized. rwf wrote: Just so we all know where you are coming from and in the interest of Full Disclosure, please tell us your involvement in the Dialcall/Nextel/Motorola/IDEN endeavor- specifically any vested interest in the technology (hint- Patents). Concerned that I might be some company shill? No need. I'd be happy to provide full disclosure. I left Moto about 4 yrs ago. I did some of the original work on Motorola's FCC comments to FleetCall's waiver request back in 92, but never worked in iDEN development. None of my patents are specific to iDEN technology, but I'd be flattered if you had looked them up. I've no vested interest in any of them anyway (all patents rights while employed at Moto are assigned to Moto, not the inventors). I've no vested interest in NexTel. As close as I get is my neighbor is a NexTel employee in sales ... does that count? Personally, I never liked or used NexTel service based on poor coverage / quality where I needed service. Hey, terms like '800' MHz, '900' MHz are *not one allocation*. Being from the radio manufacturing industry I'm acutely aware of how many different allocations are within these ranges. That's all, I just trying to be helpful in pointing out where the NexTel 900 trunking you mentioned is in relation to 900 MHz unlicensed ISM. And that I know that the iDEN served orders or magnitude more customers for NexTel than the original SMR license holders ever had, as FleetCall's original petition for waiver had correctly claimed. And that it's public knowledge where NexTel's new developments are targeted to other bands in conjunction with Sprint. chill, Rich - Original Message - From: rwf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 2:24 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen Rich- Just so we all know where you are coming from and in the interest of Full Disclosure, please tell us your involvement in the Dialcall/Nextel/Motorola/IDEN endeavor- specifically any vested interest in the technology (hint- Patents). -Original Message- Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen I don't know what the beef is. FleetCall bought up in the vicinity of 100 trunking SMR channels in each major metro almost 20 yrs ago. They claimed to the FCC that they could serve significantly more users than the typical 100 users/channel of the current early 90s analog technology. 100 channels at 100 users apiece serves only in the vicinity of 10,000 users. With the iDen technology they ultimately served almost half a million in the same geographic area with the same spectrum. So much for the unneeded technology assessment. Now that they're called NexTel, sure they continue adding whatever remaining licenses they can get their hands on, but the 800 and 900 Trunking and bands are land-locked (no room for expansion), so there's no new technology targeted to this band that I know of. Now that they're merged with Sprint, it's no secret where their new technology is targeted (WiMAX). Rich -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen
Bleed over implies that the paging system is transmitting a signal that is too wide. This is typically NOT the case. Our rather inexpensive WISP AP receivers do not have adequate selectivity to reject strong nearby signals. In other words, it's our equipment problem not their equipment problem. Also, WISP subscriber sites, unless located right under a paging/cellular tower aren't close enough to be overloaded by paging/cellular so they would not need the bandpass filter. Only our APs which are located near paging/cellular towers should need the bandpass filters. jack Larry Yunker wrote: While filters can help, the problem that I see is that filters are: 1) expensive and 2) bulky. Last time I checked, a cavity filter for the 902-928 range was roughly $300-$400. I don't see it being practical to install one of these at every customer site! Cavity filters are fine for your broadcast sites, but that is of little help when the 900Mhz paging systems bleed over so much that they deafen the subscriber radios. - Larry - Original Message - From: Mike Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:32 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen Filters fix this problem quite handily. We recommend one on every system needed or not. I don't see an issue here. Mike At 07:07 PM 10/26/2006, you wrote: ISM 902-928. Exact band and Power limit is relevant. Currently, the top 25% of ISM 900 bandwidth (channel 4) is unusable, in MANY areas, due to blead over from 930 Licensed high power gear (500W). If the same thing were to occur at the lower portion of 900 ISM bandwdith, it could kill Channel 1 also, horribly effecting WISPs using unlicenced. They also may be requesting to use higher power on the actual ISM bands, argueing Public Safety is more important than unlicensed use. Iftheir request is granted, specifics should be lsited on how they are going to prevent interference with existing unlicensed band users. Remember that the goal may not only be to use the spectrum. They have benefit in killing off all the 900Mhz WISPs, that could compete with Sprint/Nextel Next generation WiMax type Licensed 700M-900M solutions. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband Mike Cowan Wireless Connections A Division of ACC 166 Milan Ave Norwalk, OH 44857 419-660-6100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.wirelessconnections.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux
Scriv needs to hire a good consultant to come check things out! big grin Anyway, I've seen things like this before. Not this bad, but close enough. There have been a few causes. First, as I recall, this ONLY effects towers within a 15 mile radius. But it effects ALL towers within that cell. right? Assuming I remember that part correctly. I've seen CPE lock it's self into a tx mode. It'll still work, but will drive the system nuts. I've seen customers download or upload massive files (usually ptp stuff) and open up hundreds of connections and whack a tower. If it's the right tower and interferes with the other towers anywhere near it. I've been knocked offline by towers over 30 miles away! OK, that was a ptp wmux system with 8' dishes and 30dB of tx power, but still, it happened. With the new gear I'm using these days I can detect ap's 30+ miles away. If conditions are JUST right, that could add quite a bit of noise locally. There are times when radios go bad and start transmitting OUT of band. I've seen wifi stuff flood the whole band. Amps can do that too. USUALLY it's the ap's that take it in the shorts when something like this happens. After all, they are all up above the trees etc. I've also seen computers take out entire networks when they get infected. If you don't have client to client blocking enabled on your ap's they could be massively overloaded with traffic that you'll not be able to see with a scan tool at the router, it could be traffic that's not even ip traffic! Remember, most of the gear we use with pass netbeui, ipx, appletalk etc. I think the fact that towers that have routers on them between the OTHER ap's and the backhaul should prevent this. Is it possible that your 900 and 5 gig gear ALWAYS has a router at the cpe and the 2.4 doesn't? As I recall the Waverider gear, the ap is a router, that would keep things that would flow on a switch off of the 900 system. Are there any towers that are sectorized that point in a direction that makes them unaffected? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 9:39 AM Subject: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux This problem was mentioned back in May (see http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2006-May/025354.html ) but it's still here, and I thought it might be worthwhile to bounce it off folks again, to see if anyone has any new insights. Occasionally, completely at random, many of our 2.4GHz APs start showing high packet loss (usually 20-30%) and high latency (upwards of ten seconds - not milliseconds, full seconds) for a few minutes at a time. It always clears itself up eventually, usually after a minute or two, but sometimes it won't go away for ten or fifteen minutes. It's especially annoying when it happens in the middle of the day and all those itchy business customers call in at once. Random facts and tidbits: * I've watched our network traffic, using Mikrotik's torch and StarOS' beacon tools, and I don't see anything that looks like a DDOS, either entering or leaving our network. * It doesn't affect all our towers, just most of them. Specifically, our most remote towers (geographically, not in terms of network topology) are safe. * (This is the Lonnie Nunweiler clause) It affects equally towers that are bridged, routed, and hybrid bridged/routed. * I don't think it's a backhaul problem, because towers on several different kinds of backhaul links are affected simultaneously. (We've got a mix of Alvarion and Trango gear for backhauls, and at least one ancient YDI EX-1.) Also, there's no problem talking between tower locations; pings between different APs take 10ms or so, just like they normally do. * It only affects our 2.4GHz customers - folks on 900MHz gear, 5.3GHz, and 5.8GHz connections don't have any issues while things are going sour. Basically, it looks like someone's got a big giant massive something that spews out insane amounts of 2.4GHz interference, that somehow knocks out all our customers within about a fifteen-mile radius, and they turn it on every so often. Does that conclusion sound reasonable? And if it does, what the heck can I do about it? Frustrated, David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen
I concur. When a 900 MHz access point (AP) is located near a high-power paging (or other high-power) transmitter then a bandpass filter is cheap insurance to avoid or minimize the AP receiver desensing (overload) that the high-power transmitter may cause. It's impossible to know in advance how near a high-power transmitter is too near. It depends on the AP receiver selectivity, the power of the nearby transmitter, the antenna patterns, the separation distance and the strength of the incoming signals from the WISP clients. Bandpass filters will help. Physically moving further away from the high-power transmitter will also help. jack P.S. - This is discussed on page 258 of my book. John Scrivner wrote: If you have an adjacent channel carrier which is running hundreds of watts of power then you may not have a choice of whether to use the bandpass filter or not. Your system may not operate in the upper part of the 900 MHz band. What happens is that the adjacent carrier will swamp your receiver and your base station will essentially become deaf to your own, much quieter, client radios. The bandpass filter is the sole remedy to this. I think many people use filters by default because they do little harm to your system performance and may mean the difference between your system working or completely failing in the presence of higher-powered adjacent carriers. I currently run Waverider 900 MHz systems and because of this I may have a system which is more sensitive to adjacent carrier swamping than other platforms. I simply do not know about other platforms to say one way or another. I believe Charles has tested several 900 MHz platforms and may be able to expand on this discussion. It is important to note that he may have a bias toward Canopy as he now sells that platform. I can only assume that his testing may have led him, in part, to this platform choice for 900 MHz systems. Care to share your thoughts Charles? If anyone out there has any past experience with swamped 900 MHJz receivers, bandpass filters, different 900 MHz platforms, etc. then please share your thoughts about the use/need for bandpass filters. I would like to know more myself. Scriv Larry Yunker wrote: While filters can help, the problem that I see is that filters are: 1) expensive and 2) bulky. Last time I checked, a cavity filter for the 902-928 range was roughly $300-$400. I don't see it being practical to install one of these at every customer site! Cavity filters are fine for your broadcast sites, but that is of little help when the 900Mhz paging systems bleed over so much that they deafen the subscriber radios. - Larry - Original Message - From: Mike Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:32 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen Filters fix this problem quite handily. We recommend one on every system needed or not. I don't see an issue here. Mike At 07:07 PM 10/26/2006, you wrote: ISM 902-928. Exact band and Power limit is relevant. Currently, the top 25% of ISM 900 bandwidth (channel 4) is unusable, in MANY areas, due to blead over from 930 Licensed high power gear (500W). If the same thing were to occur at the lower portion of 900 ISM bandwdith, it could kill Channel 1 also, horribly effecting WISPs using unlicenced. They also may be requesting to use higher power on the actual ISM bands, argueing Public Safety is more important than unlicensed use. Iftheir request is granted, specifics should be lsited on how they are going to prevent interference with existing unlicensed band users. Remember that the goal may not only be to use the spectrum. They have benefit in killing off all the 900Mhz WISPs, that could compete with Sprint/Nextel Next generation WiMax type Licensed 700M-900M solutions. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband Mike Cowan Wireless Connections A Division of ACC 166 Milan Ave Norwalk, OH 44857 419-660-6100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.wirelessconnections.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux
If it's true that there's a giant something that's spewing noise, you can use a spectrum analyzer and try to identify the noise signature, then triangulate. jack David E. Smith wrote: This problem was mentioned back in May (see http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2006-May/025354.html ) but it's still here, and I thought it might be worthwhile to bounce it off folks again, to see if anyone has any new insights. Occasionally, completely at random, many of our 2.4GHz APs start showing high packet loss (usually 20-30%) and high latency (upwards of ten seconds - not milliseconds, full seconds) for a few minutes at a time. It always clears itself up eventually, usually after a minute or two, but sometimes it won't go away for ten or fifteen minutes. It's especially annoying when it happens in the middle of the day and all those itchy business customers call in at once. Random facts and tidbits: * I've watched our network traffic, using Mikrotik's torch and StarOS' beacon tools, and I don't see anything that looks like a DDOS, either entering or leaving our network. * It doesn't affect all our towers, just most of them. Specifically, our most remote towers (geographically, not in terms of network topology) are safe. * (This is the Lonnie Nunweiler clause) It affects equally towers that are bridged, routed, and hybrid bridged/routed. * I don't think it's a backhaul problem, because towers on several different kinds of backhaul links are affected simultaneously. (We've got a mix of Alvarion and Trango gear for backhauls, and at least one ancient YDI EX-1.) Also, there's no problem talking between tower locations; pings between different APs take 10ms or so, just like they normally do. * It only affects our 2.4GHz customers - folks on 900MHz gear, 5.3GHz, and 5.8GHz connections don't have any issues while things are going sour. Basically, it looks like someone's got a big giant massive something that spews out insane amounts of 2.4GHz interference, that somehow knocks out all our customers within about a fifteen-mile radius, and they turn it on every so often. Does that conclusion sound reasonable? And if it does, what the heck can I do about it? Frustrated, David Smith MVN.net -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux
Jack Unger wrote: If it's true that there's a giant something that's spewing noise, you can use a spectrum analyzer and try to identify the noise signature, then triangulate. If it would just stay broken for a couple hours, I'd love to do that. Sadly, this problem usually just shows up for a minute or two at a time, and never more than about fifteen minutes. The boss and I have tried that before, and the problem is just too intermittent for us to be able to narrow down that way. Of course, our spectrum-fu is not that strong. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux
On 10/27/06, David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jack Unger wrote: If it's true that there's a giant something that's spewing noise, you can use a spectrum analyzer and try to identify the noise signature, then triangulate. If it would just stay broken for a couple hours, I'd love to do that. Sadly, this problem usually just shows up for a minute or two at a time, and never more than about fifteen minutes. The boss and I have tried that before, and the problem is just too intermittent for us to be able to narrow down that way. Of course, our spectrum-fu is not that strong. David Smith MVN.net David, We have a similar situation happening mainly on one tower of ours. Basicially it is a StarOS V2 on WRAP boards setup using Prism cards for the AP's. We have 4 90* horizontal sectors. Everyones's signals are great and it runs fine most of the time. Occassionaly we see times where people have 10-20% packet loss. We look at the traffic on the tower for abuse and/or virus and don't really find anything. We've tried different channels and it doesn't seem to help. Other times there is no loss at all. Most of our clients on CB3's but we do have some Orinoco based clients. The Orinoco based clients don't seem to have the problem as much as the CB3's do however. I have not really pinned down what the difference between them would be that would cause the Orinoco's not to show this behaviour even though their signal may be somewhat lower. We've taken a spectrum analyzer up the tower and don't really see any other signals that are really hot out there but it feels like an interefernce problem. Unfortunately, the tower is about an hour drive so catching this while it happens has proved somewhat problematic. In anycase, I feel your pain. I'll let you know if we figure out what this issue is. -Eric -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux
This has been our plan all along. It just will not stay screwed up long enough to get a single heading. The signal level of the interference looks like data but it varies in level so much that finding the heading is not easy. I know spectrum analysis and this one has me stumped. I wish it would interfere and stay that way long enough to track it. I honestly think it is a leaky microwave oven because it runs about long enough to nuke a frozen chicken patty and happens at lunch time quite often! :-) Scriv Jack Unger wrote: If it's true that there's a giant something that's spewing noise, you can use a spectrum analyzer and try to identify the noise signature, then triangulate. jack David E. Smith wrote: This problem was mentioned back in May (see http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2006-May/025354.html ) but it's still here, and I thought it might be worthwhile to bounce it off folks again, to see if anyone has any new insights. Occasionally, completely at random, many of our 2.4GHz APs start showing high packet loss (usually 20-30%) and high latency (upwards of ten seconds - not milliseconds, full seconds) for a few minutes at a time. It always clears itself up eventually, usually after a minute or two, but sometimes it won't go away for ten or fifteen minutes. It's especially annoying when it happens in the middle of the day and all those itchy business customers call in at once. Random facts and tidbits: * I've watched our network traffic, using Mikrotik's torch and StarOS' beacon tools, and I don't see anything that looks like a DDOS, either entering or leaving our network. * It doesn't affect all our towers, just most of them. Specifically, our most remote towers (geographically, not in terms of network topology) are safe. * (This is the Lonnie Nunweiler clause) It affects equally towers that are bridged, routed, and hybrid bridged/routed. * I don't think it's a backhaul problem, because towers on several different kinds of backhaul links are affected simultaneously. (We've got a mix of Alvarion and Trango gear for backhauls, and at least one ancient YDI EX-1.) Also, there's no problem talking between tower locations; pings between different APs take 10ms or so, just like they normally do. * It only affects our 2.4GHz customers - folks on 900MHz gear, 5.3GHz, and 5.8GHz connections don't have any issues while things are going sour. Basically, it looks like someone's got a big giant massive something that spews out insane amounts of 2.4GHz interference, that somehow knocks out all our customers within about a fifteen-mile radius, and they turn it on every so often. Does that conclusion sound reasonable? And if it does, what the heck can I do about it? Frustrated, David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux
We look at the traffic on the tower for abuse and/or virus and don't really find anything. Just to be clear, you've checked your AP broadcast levels during the events and not found found them elevated? We found the most crippling network events were not coming into the network from the outside, but were broadcast storms between 2 or more customers (repeated through the APs). They act similar to the symptoms you cited (a few minutes of extremely elevated latency due to the short term load they place over the rf). Rich - Original Message - From: Eric Merkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux On 10/27/06, David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jack Unger wrote: If it's true that there's a giant something that's spewing noise, you can use a spectrum analyzer and try to identify the noise signature, then triangulate. If it would just stay broken for a couple hours, I'd love to do that. Sadly, this problem usually just shows up for a minute or two at a time, and never more than about fifteen minutes. The boss and I have tried that before, and the problem is just too intermittent for us to be able to narrow down that way. Of course, our spectrum-fu is not that strong. David Smith MVN.net David, We have a similar situation happening mainly on one tower of ours. Basicially it is a StarOS V2 on WRAP boards setup using Prism cards for the AP's. We have 4 90* horizontal sectors. Everyones's signals are great and it runs fine most of the time. Occassionaly we see times where people have 10-20% packet loss. We look at the traffic on the tower for abuse and/or virus and don't really find anything. We've tried different channels and it doesn't seem to help. Other times there is no loss at all. Most of our clients on CB3's but we do have some Orinoco based clients. The Orinoco based clients don't seem to have the problem as much as the CB3's do however. I have not really pinned down what the difference between them would be that would cause the Orinoco's not to show this behaviour even though their signal may be somewhat lower. We've taken a spectrum analyzer up the tower and don't really see any other signals that are really hot out there but it feels like an interefernce problem. Unfortunately, the tower is about an hour drive so catching this while it happens has proved somewhat problematic. In anycase, I feel your pain. I'll let you know if we figure out what this issue is. -Eric -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux
Maybe there is a microwave lighting system somewhere nearby. You know what to do with an outdoor light that needs to be shut off.:^) Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] John Scrivner wrote: This has been our plan all along. It just will not stay screwed up long enough to get a single heading. The signal level of the interference looks like data but it varies in level so much that finding the heading is not easy. I know spectrum analysis and this one has me stumped. I wish it would interfere and stay that way long enough to track it. I honestly think it is a leaky microwave oven because it runs about long enough to nuke a frozen chicken patty and happens at lunch time quite often! :-) Scriv Jack Unger wrote: If it's true that there's a giant something that's spewing noise, you can use a spectrum analyzer and try to identify the noise signature, then triangulate. jack David E. Smith wrote: This problem was mentioned back in May (see http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2006-May/025354.html ) but it's still here, and I thought it might be worthwhile to bounce it off folks again, to see if anyone has any new insights. Occasionally, completely at random, many of our 2.4GHz APs start showing high packet loss (usually 20-30%) and high latency (upwards of ten seconds - not milliseconds, full seconds) for a few minutes at a time. It always clears itself up eventually, usually after a minute or two, but sometimes it won't go away for ten or fifteen minutes. It's especially annoying when it happens in the middle of the day and all those itchy business customers call in at once. Random facts and tidbits: * I've watched our network traffic, using Mikrotik's torch and StarOS' beacon tools, and I don't see anything that looks like a DDOS, either entering or leaving our network. * It doesn't affect all our towers, just most of them. Specifically, our most remote towers (geographically, not in terms of network topology) are safe. * (This is the Lonnie Nunweiler clause) It affects equally towers that are bridged, routed, and hybrid bridged/routed. * I don't think it's a backhaul problem, because towers on several different kinds of backhaul links are affected simultaneously. (We've got a mix of Alvarion and Trango gear for backhauls, and at least one ancient YDI EX-1.) Also, there's no problem talking between tower locations; pings between different APs take 10ms or so, just like they normally do. * It only affects our 2.4GHz customers - folks on 900MHz gear, 5.3GHz, and 5.8GHz connections don't have any issues while things are going sour. Basically, it looks like someone's got a big giant massive something that spews out insane amounts of 2.4GHz interference, that somehow knocks out all our customers within about a fifteen-mile radius, and they turn it on every so often. Does that conclusion sound reasonable? And if it does, what the heck can I do about it? Frustrated, David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux
On 10/27/06, Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We look at the traffic on the tower for abuse and/or virus and don't really find anything. Just to be clear, you've checked your AP broadcast levels during the events and not found found them elevated? We found the most crippling network events were not coming into the network from the outside, but were broadcast storms between 2 or more customers (repeated through the APs). They act similar to the symptoms you cited (a few minutes of extremely elevated latency due to the short term load they place over the rf). Rich We try to mitigate this problem by the following: 1) Turning off inter-BSS Relay 2) We block all the typical MS ports(135-139) which broadcast all the time via iptables 3) Packet shape all connections via CBQ on the AP itself to limit how much bandwidth any one customer can consume Looking at the beacon realtime manager and tcpdump, we've never seen an unreasonable # of broadcasts when this is happening. -Eric -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux
On Fri, October 27, 2006 3:11 pm, Eric Merkel wrote: 1) Turning off inter-BSS Relay Already done, on most towers. (We do have a couple of towers where one business, with two locations, wants to do VPN-type stuff between 'em.) 2) We block all the typical MS ports(135-139) which broadcast all the time via iptables Done. We block 135-139, 445, and a couple other ports, both TCP and UDP. 3) Packet shape all connections via CBQ on the AP itself to limit how much bandwidth any one customer can consume Mostly done. (For historical reasons, some of our customers are still part of a giant bridged network, and their traffic is shaped in our office not at the AP, but those customers are relatively few and growing fewer by the week.) David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen
Jack, That all sounds good, and it brings up a good point, that we are just as probable to be the culprit, not just the other guy. Besides, their gear costs more, right :-) However, what specific gear do you have experience with, on this issue, to support your comment? I'm not sure that I am knowledgable enough on the topic, to know for sure which side is the flaw, how would we tell? I use Trango 900. Trango's have a built-in specrum site survey tool, that also scans a bit lower and higher than the ISM edge. My comment was based on the fact that, when I do the site survey, I see signals in the neg 20-30 range, spanning from significantly above 930 down to mid portion of ISM channel 4 (924 or so). Have you verified the accuracy of the Trango tool, and how it reacts to this situation? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen Bleed over implies that the paging system is transmitting a signal that is too wide. This is typically NOT the case. Our rather inexpensive WISP AP receivers do not have adequate selectivity to reject strong nearby signals. In other words, it's our equipment problem not their equipment problem. Also, WISP subscriber sites, unless located right under a paging/cellular tower aren't close enough to be overloaded by paging/cellular so they would not need the bandpass filter. Only our APs which are located near paging/cellular towers should need the bandpass filters. jack Larry Yunker wrote: While filters can help, the problem that I see is that filters are: 1) expensive and 2) bulky. Last time I checked, a cavity filter for the 902-928 range was roughly $300-$400. I don't see it being practical to install one of these at every customer site! Cavity filters are fine for your broadcast sites, but that is of little help when the 900Mhz paging systems bleed over so much that they deafen the subscriber radios. - Larry - Original Message - From: Mike Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:32 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen Filters fix this problem quite handily. We recommend one on every system needed or not. I don't see an issue here. Mike At 07:07 PM 10/26/2006, you wrote: ISM 902-928. Exact band and Power limit is relevant. Currently, the top 25% of ISM 900 bandwidth (channel 4) is unusable, in MANY areas, due to blead over from 930 Licensed high power gear (500W). If the same thing were to occur at the lower portion of 900 ISM bandwdith, it could kill Channel 1 also, horribly effecting WISPs using unlicenced. They also may be requesting to use higher power on the actual ISM bands, argueing Public Safety is more important than unlicensed use. Iftheir request is granted, specifics should be lsited on how they are going to prevent interference with existing unlicensed band users. Remember that the goal may not only be to use the spectrum. They have benefit in killing off all the 900Mhz WISPs, that could compete with Sprint/Nextel Next generation WiMax type Licensed 700M-900M solutions. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband Mike Cowan Wireless Connections A Division of ACC 166 Milan Ave Norwalk, OH 44857 419-660-6100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.wirelessconnections.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fw: PRESS RELEASE: New Report Calls for Fundamental Reformin Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Communications Policy
This is a dangerous topic as well. The writer is somewhat brilliant, in the sense that he recognizes it is wasteful, for Public safety spectrum to be limited to old technology principles, and used exclusively for federal public safety. Wouldn't it be nice if commerical and public safety could share it? That depends? If the Public safety spectrum was allocated to a single large owner of that spectrum, it means that they can leverage the Public safety spectrum to uniquely and unfarely compete against existing commerical providers that don't have access to that spectrum. What do you think would happen if 700Mhz public safety lciense holders were allowed to exclusively use the 700Mhz band to compete against independant ISP? The approach to have public safety have use on a priority basis, and to one large commercial entity for normal operation, is backwards and uncompetitive. What really needs to happen, is that Public safety needs it for normal use, and unlicensed should be allowed on a secondary basis.Or Locals should be able to license itin their area for secondary use. Tom DeReggiRapidDSL Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 11:45 AM Subject: [WISPA] Fw: PRESS RELEASE: New Report Calls for Fundamental Reformin Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Communications Policy fyi Marlon(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales(408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp!64.146.146.12 (net meeting)www.odessaoffice.com/wirelesswww.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: New America Foundation To: undisclosed-recipients: Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 4:14 PM Subject: PRESS RELEASE: New Report Calls for Fundamental Reform in Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Communications Policy For Immediate Release Contact:Jerry IrvineOctober 26, 2006 (301) 801-3356 (cell) [EMAIL PROTECTED] New Report Calls for Fundamental Reform in Public Safety Spectrumand Wireless Communications Policy Billions in federal investment in emergency radio interoperability will be wasted without major reforms; federal-level Integrated Wireless Network plan called inefficient; IWN should either be opened to state and local first responders or terminated, says academic expert WASHINGTON (October 26) The United States must fundamentally alter how spectrum is given to emergency agencies and how wireless safety networks are built and managed before billions of dollars of new federal investments in public safety interoperability are made in the next few years, said Jon M. Peha, Professor of Electrical Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, in a report for the New American Foundation released at a forum earlier today. Unfortunately, policymakers seem likely to preserve the antiquated status quo, thereby forfeiting an opportunity to make communications failures less common, to use spectrum more efficiently, and to reduce the costs borne by taxpayers, Peha said. Peha listed four sources of new federal investment that he believes are at risk: · $3-to$30 billion on a brand new, nationwide wireless radio system (IWN) for federal first responders; · 24 MHz of cleared, new spectrum, worth $5-to-$10 billion; · $1 billion in set-aside funds for interoperability, to be taken from the auction of adjacent spectrum to commercial users; and · Hundreds of millions of dollars annually in homeland security grants for interoperability to state and local agencies. Peha said IWN should be cancelled unless state and local agencies are added to it. There is no reason to invest billions of taxpayer dollars in a network that serves only federal first responders, when a vast majority of first responders work for state and local agencies, he concluded. A panel of experts assembled at todays forum concurred that major changes are needed. Peha attacked four key assumptions that he said underlie the huge problems faced by public safety wireless systems: · Primary responsibility for emergency communications systems can no longer reside with tens of thousands of individual agencies and communities. Networks must be designed at national or regional levels. · It is not necessary that public safety run its own systems; there are circumstances in which it is efficient to utilize commercial systems as well. · Public safety insists on functioning in spectrum devoted solely to public safety, using equipment entirely dedicated to public safety. We should consider making some spectrum available
[WISPA] FREE OSS and Billing Software for WiSPS
FREE OSS and Billing Software for WiSPS And then there are all the paid services. http://www.dboss-online.com/ read the pdf prices on page 22, but I emailed them and they said the prices are changing. More like $250.00 a month for 0 - 250 customers (bundled services) http://www.dboss-online.com/wisp_services.pdf Pretty neat services they offer. I'm not technical enough to do it all on my own, this looks ok. Give me some input here. Are all these services needed? How does the value look? Brian Rohrbacher -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FREE OSS and Billing Software for WiSPS
I like how they end their pitch... The reason and dreams behind getting into the WiSP business in the first place can finally be realized by contracting with RidgeviewTel’s WiSP Services division. -Matt Brian Rohrbacher wrote: FREE OSS and Billing Software for WiSPS And then there are all the paid services. http://www.dboss-online.com/ read the pdf prices on page 22, but I emailed them and they said the prices are changing. More like $250.00 a month for 0 - 250 customers (bundled services) http://www.dboss-online.com/wisp_services.pdf Pretty neat services they offer. I'm not technical enough to do it all on my own, this looks ok. Give me some input here. Are all these services needed? How does the value look? Brian Rohrbacher -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
