http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/commconnect.htm
Is that because of the Farm Bill vs. the ARRA?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
I'm researching these two technologies and Wimax in general, does anyone
have any firsthand experience with the two current different types of
Wimax, or references to the differences in the two different types of
technologies for broadband fixed rural deployments?
Regards
Michael Baird
The Community Connect program has nothing to do with ARRA, and is seperate.
(I believe from the Farm bill?)
It has been an ongoing program for years.
It is one of the true programs for expanding broadband to the MOST RURAL
portions of America, and been highly successful for that purpose.
Then
Tom's right, Community Connect is from the 2008 Farm Bill.
The requirements this year are practically identical - the ONLY
significant changes in the guidance that I see are in how they've
structured the guidance on matching funds and in-kind, and in that case
it's just a change in how they
DOH, I confused 404 with 414 and 678 with 608 oh well. He's the right
guy, thanks.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:24
The only good answer to combat DFS is to use directional PTP antennas with
good F/B ratios.
I'd give 5.4G back to the FCC in a heartbeat, if they gave us 5.3Ghz back
without DFS and low power requirements.
If you ask me Either 5.3 radars or 5.4 radars should be forced to
upgrade to the
Eje,
The way DFS is designed in MT it will never be
able to get certified.
Pleasse elaborate, thats a strong statement. If it were true it would means
that the DFS limit was hardware or 802.11a protocol based, because software
ALWAYS has the option to be changed and modified to meet a
With your calculator, take your front to back attenuation for your dish (or
side) and apply 41 watts to it from direction chosen and let me know
what you end up with lol...
You can't possibly combat it at all cause if your on the same freq your
going to get a visit from some people that
Besides the fact that MT should be smarter than to work on a feature that
was not possible to achieve from the beginning...
Scott Carullo
Brevard Wireless
321-205-1100 x102
Original Message
From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:19 AM
Is it military radar or weather radar that operates in these bands? If it is
weather then we are lucky around here, our county is smack dab in the middle
of the out of range zone for 3 different weather radars by about 60+ miles
each. The National Weather Service is really interested in storm
You don't think your active transmitter can affect their weather radar?
NOT
Just because they have their gain tuned such that they can't hear a
reflection off a baseball in your area doesn't mean your signal won't come
booming in for them :)
Mostly weather radar... And - remember - its
I need a means to monitor a 24 volt battery system in a remote area. I can
open and close relays via cell phone. It can be digital or through a tone
generator or second best would be IP.
Any suggestions?
Thanx
NGL
If you can read this Thank A Teacher.
And if it's in English Thank A Soldier!
Well as it stands to day it will not be able to because one of the
requirements is continuously looking and detecting radar signatures. In
their current implementation they only look for a short period after the
interface been enabled but before it start transmitting. Next time it will
look is if
Some Mikrotik boards can do this and you have a remote network sniffer to
boot ;)
Scott Carullo
Brevard Wireless
321-205-1100 x102
Original Message
From: NGL n...@ngl.net
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:00 AM
To: wireless@wispa.org wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA]
Not using Mikrotik using Tranzeo.
--
From: Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 8:09 AM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Monitor a 24 volt battery
Some Mikrotik boards can do this and
Eje Gustafsson wrote:
Well as it stands to day it will not be able to because one of the
requirements is continuously looking and detecting radar signatures. In
their current implementation they only look for a short period after the
interface been enabled but before it start transmitting.
I have read numerous discussions on problems regarding self interference
between two mPCI cards inserted in the same SBC, on same Freqs. Some
reporting need for 40Mhz of center channel seperation.
These are the factors...
U.FL vs MMCX connectors
One vs two Antenna Ports on a single mpci card
WE saw this recently here,
The FCC and FAA sent a crew of about 10 perrsons to hunt down some rogue
emissions that were afecting the local FAA Weather Radar. They were
here for about 2 weeks.
The local radar operated in 5610, had a rx opening from 5580 to 5640.
The gain of the Weather antenna
Not so sure about the smart comment. Keep in mind it took the FCC until very
recently to make up their mind how to properly test for radar. MikroTik have
had the DFS feature in for some time (well before the DFS2 requirements) was
even close to final iteration. When they had come out with their
With DFS2, many have referred to signaturesand patterns to detect to
determined radar is heard.
But it has also been stated, it had to be heard at a signal level of x
(near -30).
With 802.11a, a 20 Mhz channel can not decipher/hear 10Mhz channels, nor
10Mhz channels hear/decipher 20Mhz
Just a dumb question...
If DFS is not certified on MT and is required for 5.3 operation how could
you drum up support for planning something illegal?
Scott Carullo
Brevard Wireless
321-205-1100 x102
Original Message
From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net
Sent:
I missed the part where he said anything about deploying it outdoors :-)
Daniel White
3-dB Networks
http://www.3dbnetworks.com
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Scott Carullo
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:58 AM
To:
Scott,
No, I was not kidding.
I am NOT suggesting using gear that does not adequately support DFS2.
But lets consider a TLink45 for example that is DFS2 certified.
The DFS2 spec ONLY requires that you to listen and detect Radar, and not
transmit IF Radar is HEARD.
If radar is NOT heard,
OK, fair question.Two answers
1) Modify question/thread to ask.
a) How to get two 2.4Ghz radars operational on MT433
b) How to get two 5.8Ghz cards operational on MT433
2) This is RD in development. Problem 1 is getting two cards to
not-interfere in a SBC like MT433 on same
Basically from own experience and testing.
Two cards mounted side by side at a slight distance even if they are XR5
cards suffers no to minimal problems between them and it goes for all cards
I seen.
Two cards mount closely stacked on each other with just millimeter distance
do cause problems
Maybe thats why the weather man always get the forcast wrong, those darn
WISPs :-)
OK, lets get real... I agree, we should not do anything that we know will
purposely harm radar systems.
But the FEDs negotiated teh DFS technical spec for 5-7 years, before they
finally gave it to us.
If they
Here is the quick answer:
802.16d is a fixed only technology (no mobility) which performs quite
well for delivering broadband to homes and businesses. Highly
available. Secure. More expensive, more scalable and somewhat higher
latency than similar fixed technologies based on 802.11 and other
Thing is that WISP are secondary or Terceary users of 5.4, It took 10
persons cause our area is very similar to Miami, lots of Bldgs, lots of
RF Emitters in the area... Thay had lots of work to do!
It was a tough job to do... They visited nearly 25 rooftops among other
locations, during lots of
Its interesting to hear details of how it went down. I'm not suggesting it
wasn't alot of work or difficult. But I was more bringing forward the point
that I still don't see how its any different than what a WISP has to go
through on a daily basis, for example in my home market of DC. We have
Well yeah, the sad part is the folks that came here were directly
involved in the drafting of the dfs2 rules, and the word going back to
DC is that new users of 5.4 are a bunch of cowboys using $80 gear not
certified. They had a similar problem in NYC
You can imagine what that could do to us as
Best solution
Publish all radar locations and freqs and we avoid like the plauge
Scott Carullo
Brevard Wireless
(321) 205-1100 x102
On Apr 21, 2009, at 1:14 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net
wrote:
Maybe thats why the weather man always get the forcast wrong, those
darn
WISPs
It is published- FCC ULS search. Be sure to look there before trying to
deploy a 5.4 link next to a 1.4 MW (yes, mega) EIRP weather radar tower
like I did.
Patrick Shoemaker
Vector Data Systems LLC
shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
office: (301) 358-1690 x36
http://www.vectordatasystems.com
But it will trigger on civilian weather radar signals if they're hot
enough.
Or if Trango TLink45's, it will trigger on someone sneezing in the vicinity.
Patrick Shoemaker
Vector Data Systems LLC
shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
office: (301) 358-1690 x36
http://www.vectordatasystems.com
All this DFS stuff makes me think that staying in the ISM bands makes
more sense.
Gino Villarini wrote:
WE saw this recently here,
The FCC and FAA sent a crew of about 10 perrsons to hunt down some rogue
emissions that were afecting the local FAA Weather Radar. They were
here for
We are looking to buy about 150' of Rohn 45 like tower
Any preffered brand? Vendor?
Nello?
Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145
Call Nello
Scott Carullo
Brevard Wireless
321-205-1100 x102
Original Message
From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 4:03 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org, Motorola Canopy User
Group motor...@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] Tower Source
Nello for sure.
AN Wireless in Pennsylvania, too.
Gino Villarini wrote:
We are looking to buy about 150' of Rohn 45 like tower
Any preffered brand? Vendor?
Nello?
Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145
I second AN wireless. Dan is great to work with. They stock Nello sections.
--
Patrick Shoemaker
Vector Data Systems LLC
shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
office: (301) 358-1690 x36
http://www.vectordatasystems.com
Scott Reed wrote:
Nello for sure.
AN Wireless in Pennsylvania, too.
Gino
Here's a post from Bob M. recently
Just wanted to post a quick plug here for Nello Towers.
If any of you guys or gals is considering buying a tower or towers you
should consider these guys. We have been installing tower stuff for
years and and I can't remember the last time I didn't have to
Have you deployed it? From my initial research, it appears that the
bigger vendors Motorola/Alverion are supporting the 802.16e variety,
while the smaller vendors such as Tranzeo are supporting the 802.16d
variety. I'm aware of the advantages at the Mac Layer, but why would
802.16d at 3.65
I don't believe MT has drivers for it yet.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 5:42 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
I'd advise following whatever antenna type and antenna spacing
recommendations the manufacturer makes. Getting proper performance from
multiple antennas requires spacing them properly.
jack
Tom DeReggi wrote:
Looks like the new MIMO (a,g,n) SR71-A Ubiquiti card is now shipping for
around
Yeah, it definately does. I'd never build a model around 5.4Ghz.
But, when there is no otehr free spectrum, 5.4G starts to get tempting to use.
You'd be surprised there are some areas, that are totally 5.4Ghz free. 1 or 2
Tier1 markets, I've seen that way.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL Wireless, Inc
On Apr 21, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Michael Baird wrote:
Have you deployed it? From my initial research, it appears that the
bigger vendors Motorola/Alverion are supporting the 802.16e variety,
while the smaller vendors such as Tranzeo are supporting the 802.16d
variety. I'm aware of the advantages
Well depends what you are looking to solve.
WiMax is not only about coverage and range.
The relevent question is not to compare 802.16d to 802.11.
Its well known the benefits of a TDD based system over a contension based
system like 802.11 with side effects of latency and lower throughput per
To bad, but I bet they are working on it :-)
Does anybody?
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
- Original Message -
From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 6:45 PM
Subject:
Have any of you guys used those wall plates that are both a switch and
an access point?
I heard that Colubrius (now HP) makes a good line, although I haven't
used them. I've seen the 3comm ones, but haven't implemented them yet.
Unfortunately for reason I don't understand (because what you say to me as well
seems to make more sense) they measure by spectral density power strength. So
you can only do so much power per MHz. This of course means just what you say
the wider channel your allowed to use the higher power
This came up in the other forums, and the general consensus is that the
drivers, even from the makers of the chipsets, are sorely weak. There's
not good support even from UBNT, who sells them.MT and Star-OS do not
and will not have drivers for some time.
While I haven't done a wide spread deployment... I have played with the
Moto/Tut Systems stuff and I am very impressed. Easy to setup and it just
rocks.
Hit me offlist if you want more info
Daniel White
3-dB Networks
http://www.3dbnetworks.com
-Original Message-
From:
I have a splash page such as what you are describing (
http://vogent.net:88/ ) but no CPE insurance program.
John
Ray Jean wrote:
Does anyone have a page they use when you cut off a customer for non-payment
and let them know that their internet has been suspended. Letting them know
what to
Since WISPA is our wireless organization... and one of which I promised to join
and will soon now that tax season is gone and my other wireless membership
has expired...
We all need towers of some form of another. Could WISPA become a buyer's
club(for lack of better words) for towers,
On Apr 21, 2009, at 7:29 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
Chuck,
That is defiantely a plus now. But isn't that like a false advantage
in the
long run?
With only 20-30Mhz of spectrum, will it stay noise free for long?
For some reason I thought it was 50 MHz of bandwidth, but in any case,
the
We just send them to our credit card pay page - they get the idea... we
redirect http traffic only so the rest of their traffic is unaffected
unless the bill doesn't get taken care of after being redirected a short
while...
Scott Carullo
Brevard Wireless
321-205-1100 x102
Original
54 matches
Mail list logo
