Re: [WISPA] Fw: Tower Sway
Looked to me they had at least one snapped guy wire. Storm damage or a errant backhoe maybe? Wonder if it was fixed or if it came down. On 11/21/07, Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Holy error rates Batman! LOL, even *I* know this isn't the way to build a tower for all of those big dishes. marlon - Original Message - From: Kris Kirby To: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:56 PM Subject: Tower Sway http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jP-5fdYQ5Y -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR But remember, with no superpowers comes no responsibility. --rly WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fw: Tower Sway
That's a very scary video. I don't see any torque arm brackets on the FBI tower nor does it appear that the tower itself is large enough to hold that many large antennas. As Jeromie observed, one of the guy wires has already snapped. It's only a matter of time before total collapse. jack Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Holy error rates Batman! LOL, even *I* know this isn't the way to build a tower for all of those big dishes. marlon - Original Message - From: Kris Kirby To: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:56 PM Subject: Tower Sway http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jP-5fdYQ5Y -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR But remember, with no superpowers comes no responsibility. --rly WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ 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. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Fw: Tower Sway
I really don't think that one would meet the twist and sway requirements for rev G. Mike Bushard, Jr Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC 320-256-WISP (9477) 320-256-9478 Fax -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 1:27 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: Tower Sway That's a very scary video. I don't see any torque arm brackets on the FBI tower nor does it appear that the tower itself is large enough to hold that many large antennas. As Jeromie observed, one of the guy wires has already snapped. It's only a matter of time before total collapse. jack Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Holy error rates Batman! LOL, even *I* know this isn't the way to build a tower for all of those big dishes. marlon - Original Message - From: Kris Kirby To: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:56 PM Subject: Tower Sway http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jP-5fdYQ5Y -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR But remember, with no superpowers comes no responsibility. --rly WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ 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. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I put a connection limit on all traffic from ports 1024-65535, because the torrent has to use a connection somewhere and usually the bit progs are set to use somewhere above port 1024. That will not help on UDP or the ones using port 80. I have another connection limit set higher on all tcp connections to try to help combat the port 80 users. -- Original Message -- From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:15:14 -0800 Thats my point. I use star and it has all the layer 7 stuff built into the cpe. I can control to my hearts content. Generaly I put a switch in or bridge the linksys wifi router and take control there. If I had to and I did one situation, I can give daddy one set of rules and little abusing johnny another. for the most part, I don't have too much to worry about, it's not being able to tightly control the encrypted stuff that is the issue. CHUCK PROFITO wrote: You are nuts or spoiled on 5 gig or have fiber stuffed up every tower. 1 P2P on a 2.4 rural ap opening 100+ connections will packet flood an ap in about 1 minute. 2.4 will only realistically deliver 5 megs per radio. 1 P2P uploading to 60 plus users will be slowed enough to bring the bits per packet way down, then the packet flood ensues. Now put six sectors on a tower, with 300+ subs, 10 megs of back haul, then add 6 P2P and on top of that add three or four bit torrent users with 50 or 60 connections each down loading the best movie ever from Netflix, and now your backhaul starts the flood too.. And you are 30 miles from the fiber head in. Yeah, right... Don't tell me not to shape the traffic. Chuck Profito 209-988-7388 CV-ACCESS, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providing High Speed Broadband to Rural Central California -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Come on, you guys that sell slow broadband generaly don't have too much to worry about. It's not like if you got an ap that does 10 megs and you sell 50 512k subs that the one or three out of 20 running p2p is going to be very noticable. Try giving those 50 equal access to the full 10 megs and see what happens then, if you don't throttle the p2p. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p traffic, you have bigger issues. :) Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: How do you cap the encrypted stuff? Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day, but otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg. The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their connection, they will start switching to something that does not have caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth usage, but we allow reasonable usage). Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types of traffic and rate limit them. And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of various offerings we can provide. Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want something different, then it's price c. The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought. Mark Nash wrote: This is a good debate. What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind for the last year or so. As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$ off of our connections, where's our cut? The customer is paying for a connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as this content proliferates through our networks? Bandwidth is getting cheaper per meg, you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to lower the cost of bandwidth. However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service anymore to folks who desperately want it. With more and more apps providing high-throughput content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by going with a bigger/cheaper pipe. IF IT IS UNCHECKED. My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting our customers cost us