Re: [WISPA] Fw: Tower Sway

2007-11-22 Thread Jeromie Reeves
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

2007-11-22 Thread Jack Unger
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

2007-11-22 Thread Mike Bushard, Jr
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

2007-11-22 Thread Scottie Arnett
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