Re: [WISPA] juniper

[Marco Coelho]

When I talk uptime, I mean uptime with no incidents, no unscheduled
reboots, no issues period.  I've got Some old grey Cisco routers that
have been running for literally years without a reboot.

The only things I can give this award to are a well built, locked
down, linux box, and a few well configured routers.

It's how you'd want your pace maker to be!

Marco Cisco



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] How Priviliged are Emails?

[eje]

Many states requires just that one party is aware of the recording. Some states 
require two party. This is why you hear at most places when you call in a 
recorded message that your call might be recorded. I love the thing about 
"might" there is no might or may about it. They all are but rarely reviewed or 
used. 
Kansas for example is a one party state so a company that record "for quality" 
assurance don't necessary need to state that as long as their employees know. 
But it gets bit more sticky if someone calls interstate from a state that 
require two party if a lawsuit is field in the one party state your ok but if 
the other part files in his state that requires two part and it wasn't 
disclosed at the start of the phone call then the recording wouldn't be 
accepted by the court. If you tell during the phone call anything said before 
the other party was informed would not be accepted in the courts in a state 
that require two party knowledge. 

 
The thing about those silly "confidential" signatures. they been thrown out 
more then once in court so just a waste of time. Especially "if your not 
intended recipient" if it was sent to your email it was intended for you. What 
it would protect against is someone that hacked another's account but someone 
that did that wouldn't be afraid of a silly signature like that plus you would 
have to catch him as well. So just a waste of time. 

/Eje
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-Original Message-
From: "St. Louis Broadband" 
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:49:32 
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] How Priviliged are Emails?

> Note that if the phone call was being recorded right you would not hear
anything at all.  In the modern IP world there are no "clicks" to hear.  The
other party may have had a tape recorder or something analog on their
handset, though.

Yep, this is where it cracks me up...and a small telco, none the less.

V

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 10:39 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] How Priviliged are Emails?

If it's going on a public list then it's public information.  How are you
going to protect prying eyes from this:
http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

The disclaimer means little to me and is more annoying then anything.

Note that if the phone call was being recorded right you would not hear
anything at all.  In the modern IP world there are no "clicks" to hear.  The
other party may have had a tape recorder or something analog on their
handset, though.

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

"When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
improbable, must be the truth."
--- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Lists  wrote:

> We see these footers stating "this information is confidential" or "if you
> get this email by mistake." I personally like that one, if you do not who
> you are sending it to.tough luck.
>
>
>
> What if there is no 'disclaimer' on a string of emails?  No, in
> confidential
> comment, can that be repeated?
>
>
>
> In Missouri we actually can record a voice conversation without informing
> the other party!  I always thought that there had to be that beep warning
> letting you know.watch out.
>
> Recently my conversation was recorded, I know because I kept hearing
> feedback, come on if you are going to do it do it right.  Frankly, I did
> not
> care because I wanted my position documented and them being able to rewind
> and rewind.
>
>
>
> But imagine this rule and compare it to email.  It is hard to do since
> these
> rules are regulated on a state level, whereas email is regulated on a
> federal level.
>
>
>
> But what say you WISPA, if an email does not have a "confidentiality
> notice"
> is it considered privileged?
>
>
>
> Victoria Proffer
>
> www.StLouisBroadband.com
>
> 314-974-5600
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


> 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/






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
---

Re: [WISPA] How Priviliged are Emails?

[St. Louis Broadband]

> Note that if the phone call was being recorded right you would not hear
anything at all.  In the modern IP world there are no "clicks" to hear.  The
other party may have had a tape recorder or something analog on their
handset, though.

Yep, this is where it cracks me up...and a small telco, none the less.

V

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 10:39 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] How Priviliged are Emails?

If it's going on a public list then it's public information.  How are you
going to protect prying eyes from this:
http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

The disclaimer means little to me and is more annoying then anything.

Note that if the phone call was being recorded right you would not hear
anything at all.  In the modern IP world there are no "clicks" to hear.  The
other party may have had a tape recorder or something analog on their
handset, though.

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

"When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
improbable, must be the truth."
--- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Lists  wrote:

> We see these footers stating "this information is confidential" or "if you
> get this email by mistake." I personally like that one, if you do not who
> you are sending it to.tough luck.
>
>
>
> What if there is no 'disclaimer' on a string of emails?  No, in
> confidential
> comment, can that be repeated?
>
>
>
> In Missouri we actually can record a voice conversation without informing
> the other party!  I always thought that there had to be that beep warning
> letting you know.watch out.
>
> Recently my conversation was recorded, I know because I kept hearing
> feedback, come on if you are going to do it do it right.  Frankly, I did
> not
> care because I wanted my position documented and them being able to rewind
> and rewind.
>
>
>
> But imagine this rule and compare it to email.  It is hard to do since
> these
> rules are regulated on a state level, whereas email is regulated on a
> federal level.
>
>
>
> But what say you WISPA, if an email does not have a "confidentiality
> notice"
> is it considered privileged?
>
>
>
> Victoria Proffer
>
> www.StLouisBroadband.com
>
> 314-974-5600
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


> 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/






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] How Priviliged are Emails?

[Josh Luthman]

If it's going on a public list then it's public information.  How are you
going to protect prying eyes from this:
http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

The disclaimer means little to me and is more annoying then anything.

Note that if the phone call was being recorded right you would not hear
anything at all.  In the modern IP world there are no "clicks" to hear.  The
other party may have had a tape recorder or something analog on their
handset, though.

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

"When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
improbable, must be the truth."
--- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Lists  wrote:

> We see these footers stating "this information is confidential" or "if you
> get this email by mistake." I personally like that one, if you do not who
> you are sending it to.tough luck.
>
>
>
> What if there is no 'disclaimer' on a string of emails?  No, in
> confidential
> comment, can that be repeated?
>
>
>
> In Missouri we actually can record a voice conversation without informing
> the other party!  I always thought that there had to be that beep warning
> letting you know.watch out.
>
> Recently my conversation was recorded, I know because I kept hearing
> feedback, come on if you are going to do it do it right.  Frankly, I did
> not
> care because I wanted my position documented and them being able to rewind
> and rewind.
>
>
>
> But imagine this rule and compare it to email.  It is hard to do since
> these
> rules are regulated on a state level, whereas email is regulated on a
> federal level.
>
>
>
> But what say you WISPA, if an email does not have a "confidentiality
> notice"
> is it considered privileged?
>
>
>
> Victoria Proffer
>
> www.StLouisBroadband.com
>
> 314-974-5600
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> 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/

[WISPA] How Priviliged are Emails?

[Lists]

We see these footers stating "this information is confidential" or "if you
get this email by mistake." I personally like that one, if you do not who
you are sending it to.tough luck.  

 

What if there is no 'disclaimer' on a string of emails?  No, in confidential
comment, can that be repeated?

 

In Missouri we actually can record a voice conversation without informing
the other party!  I always thought that there had to be that beep warning
letting you know.watch out.

Recently my conversation was recorded, I know because I kept hearing
feedback, come on if you are going to do it do it right.  Frankly, I did not
care because I wanted my position documented and them being able to rewind
and rewind.

 

But imagine this rule and compare it to email.  It is hard to do since these
rules are regulated on a state level, whereas email is regulated on a
federal level.

 

But what say you WISPA, if an email does not have a "confidentiality notice"
is it considered privileged?

 

Victoria Proffer

www.StLouisBroadband.com

314-974-5600

 

 

 

 




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] juniper

[Josh Luthman]

I don't want to say too much but I can share this...

https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages/2009-October/001593.html

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

"When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
improbable, must be the truth."
--- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Jeremy Parr  wrote:

> 2009/10/23 Josh Luthman :
> > I have to say that uptime usually doesn't mean it's a solid product,
> > rather it has had sufficient power for that time.  I have had Windows
> > 95 running for months and XP for a good 3 years.
> >
> > Now if I wanted to bash Cisco I would point at the incident this week
> > with Level3 in Atlanta.
>
> What happened? I didn't see anything on NANOG about it.
>
>
>
> 
> 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] WISPA Webinar Announced

[lakeland]

Can I make a recommendation that someone record it and put it in a members only 
area for review by new members.

Great idea getting the manufacturers to present. 

-B-
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "Forbes Mercy" 
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:54:57 
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] WISPA Webinar Announced

This is to WISPA Members, if you're not a member you have time to join!

LEAVE YOUR CALENDAR OPEN FOR NOVEMBER 4th at 2PM Eastern, 11AM Pacific
and all time zones in between.  WISPA Promotions announce the first ever
Webinar.  This event is our outreach for members only, a personal visit
from a product manufacturer relevant to our industry.  We are hoping to
make this a regular event with different member manufacturers in our
industry. It is a pure question/answer session.

Several top administrators and highly-placed technical staff from a
manufacturer will be available to answer questions about any topic from
specifications to distribution/inventory control or future releases.
The first session will be with Ubiquity, the fast growing manufacturer
of many popular radios.  This idea came from a long thread of member
emails that essentially were 'guessing' about what these radios could or
could not do.  We consider these answers 'from the horse's mouth', and a
rare chance to talk to someone knowledgeable.  Again this is a session
for paid members only as a service of WISPA as we add value to your
membership.

The personnel attending from Ubiquity are:

Mike Ford - Technical Support and Applications Manager
Ben Moore - VP Bus. Dev.

We invite other manufacturers to email our Promotions Committee so we
may make this exclusive feature available on an ongoing basis. Simply
email for...@wispa.org and we can put together a schedule for these
sessions.  These are not sales presentations and video content is at the
option of the manufacturer.  The session will run 30-45 minutes for this
first one.  As it is our trial edition many of the rules and procedures
for future sessions will be based on how this session runs.  The exact
details of how to access, and the moderated rules for this forum will be
released Monday, November 2nd.

This Webinar is for you to learn more about the Vendors and their
equipment, we hope you attend and thank you for being a member of WISPA!

Forbes Mercy
WISPA Promotions Committee Chair




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] juniper

[Jeremy Parr]

2009/10/23 Josh Luthman :
> I have to say that uptime usually doesn't mean it's a solid product,
> rather it has had sufficient power for that time.  I have had Windows
> 95 running for months and XP for a good 3 years.
>
> Now if I wanted to bash Cisco I would point at the incident this week
> with Level3 in Atlanta.

What happened? I didn't see anything on NANOG about it.



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] juniper

[Josh Luthman]

I have to say that uptime usually doesn't mean it's a solid product,
rather it has had sufficient power for that time.  I have had Windows
95 running for months and XP for a good 3 years.

Now if I wanted to bash Cisco I would point at the incident this week
with Level3 in Atlanta.

On 10/23/09, Marco Coelho  wrote:
> Juniper is a solid product.  We've used lots of them in various
> situations.  Be wary of the GUI front end
> I think they were designed by the software engineers only, with no
> systems engineering control.  The GUI interfaces is about as user
> friendly and intuitive as a wife.
>
> No dear, that wasn't me..
>
> That said, my uptime on medium to larger sized Cisco gear is measured
> in years.  When you are purchasing a 5 to 7 year product the cost is
> not the biggest driver.
>
> Marco
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Josh Luthman
>  wrote:
>> Great, so it's following wireless-test!  Go MikroTik!
>>
>> On 10/23/09, Nick Olsen  wrote:
>>> Well, its been running a week, stable. With a full BGP table.
>>> Where 3.24 plus couldn't run a full bgp table for more then 4 hours,
>>> without idling out and coming back.
>>> I understand a week isn't nothing, But since about 3.28 with routing
>>> test,
>>> bgp has been as stable as the machine its running on.
>>>
>>> Nick Olsen
>>> Brevard Wireless
>>> (321) 205-1100 x106
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> From: "Josh Luthman" 
>>> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 4:45 PM
>>> To: "n...@brevardwireless.com" , "WISPA General
>>> List" 
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] juniper
>>>
>>> I don't mean to be rude but 4.1 came out a week ago, how much testing
>>> could
>>> you have done?!
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>> "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
>>> improbable, must be the truth."
>>> --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Nick Olsen wrote:
>>>
 Mikrotik BGP has come a long way. And is really stable in our testing.
 running 4.1

 Nick Olsen
 Brevard Wireless
 (321) 205-1100 x106


 

 From: "jp"
 Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 3:29 PM
 To: "wireless@wispa.org"
 Subject: [WISPA] juniper

 Anyone use their routers? I'm wondering if they overstate their
>>> performance

 greatly or if they are conservative in their promises.

 I'm considering using one to replace an aging Cisco. The Cisco has been
 reliable, but it's running out of steam with 150mbit going through it
 pretty
 steady, and low on memory for more BGP. Mikrotik I love, but I don't
>>> trust

 their BGP and software feature testing in new software releases for
 something
 this important.

 This Juniper is about $3k and has pretty nice specs.
 http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/j-series/j2350/

 --
 /*
 Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
 KB1IOJ        |   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting
 http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Maine    http://www.midcoast.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/

>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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/Unsubscri

Re: [WISPA] juniper

[Marco Coelho]

Juniper is a solid product.  We've used lots of them in various
situations.  Be wary of the GUI front end
I think they were designed by the software engineers only, with no
systems engineering control.  The GUI interfaces is about as user
friendly and intuitive as a wife.

No dear, that wasn't me..

That said, my uptime on medium to larger sized Cisco gear is measured
in years.  When you are purchasing a 5 to 7 year product the cost is
not the biggest driver.

Marco

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Josh Luthman
 wrote:
> Great, so it's following wireless-test!  Go MikroTik!
>
> On 10/23/09, Nick Olsen  wrote:
>> Well, its been running a week, stable. With a full BGP table.
>> Where 3.24 plus couldn't run a full bgp table for more then 4 hours,
>> without idling out and coming back.
>> I understand a week isn't nothing, But since about 3.28 with routing test,
>> bgp has been as stable as the machine its running on.
>>
>> Nick Olsen
>> Brevard Wireless
>> (321) 205-1100 x106
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>> From: "Josh Luthman" 
>> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 4:45 PM
>> To: "n...@brevardwireless.com" , "WISPA General
>> List" 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] juniper
>>
>> I don't mean to be rude but 4.1 came out a week ago, how much testing
>> could
>> you have done?!
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
>> improbable, must be the truth."
>> --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Nick Olsen wrote:
>>
>>> Mikrotik BGP has come a long way. And is really stable in our testing.
>>> running 4.1
>>>
>>> Nick Olsen
>>> Brevard Wireless
>>> (321) 205-1100 x106
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> From: "jp"
>>> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 3:29 PM
>>> To: "wireless@wispa.org"
>>> Subject: [WISPA] juniper
>>>
>>> Anyone use their routers? I'm wondering if they overstate their
>> performance
>>>
>>> greatly or if they are conservative in their promises.
>>>
>>> I'm considering using one to replace an aging Cisco. The Cisco has been
>>> reliable, but it's running out of steam with 150mbit going through it
>>> pretty
>>> steady, and low on memory for more BGP. Mikrotik I love, but I don't
>> trust
>>>
>>> their BGP and software feature testing in new software releases for
>>> something
>>> this important.
>>>
>>> This Juniper is about $3k and has pretty nice specs.
>>> http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/j-series/j2350/
>>>
>>> --
>>> /*
>>> Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
>>> KB1IOJ        |   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting
>>> http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Maine    http://www.midcoast.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/
>>>
>>
>> 
>> 
>> 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/
>>
>
>
> --
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
> improbable, must be the truth."
> --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http:

Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!

[John Valenti]

Mike,

First, take everything I saw about this with a grain of salt, because  
I'm no expert.

 From my reading of the R&O, there are two types of whitespace device.  
There is a low power version, that I think is intended to be like a  
mini-PCI card, installed in a laptop. There are no height restrictions  
on that.

Probably of more interest to us are the higher power devices (up to 4  
watts, I think). Those are limited to antenna heights between 10 and  
30 meters. I don't think the AP is special, it also has to be minimum  
10m high. So it couldn't be on the ground.

Personally, I wonder about this 10m minimum. Since all the devices are  
networked, I would argue that maybe 50% of an APs clients could be  
lower. One of the higher radios could pick up a new tv signal and  
force the whole AP to move channels. That would avoid the silly  
looking large antenna 15' above a single story ranch house roof.   
Perhaps if this stuff takes off, we could argue for that in the  
future.  (or maybe I'm all wrong, since I'm more a software guy)
-John


On Oct 23, 2009, at 4:01 PM, Mike wrote:

> Thanks guys for sharing the height thing.  Such restrictions on the
> "production" plan won't work.  If the goal is to allow such use in an
> urban setting, the modulation technique would have to be able to
> survive severe multipath.  I'll have to think about the AP on the
> ground and the client on the roof.  Does that make sense?  It would
> certainly keep interference to the AP down.




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] Holy cow!

[chris cooper]

Hats off to jack and the rest who worked on this on our collective
behalf.  Nice work.
I agree with Jack.  Pony up the $250.  The value is clearly here.
 
Chris Cooper
Intelliwave LLC
 
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 5:41 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!
 
Hi Mike,

We just finished our work on WISPA's "Spectrum for Broadband" filing and
it goes to the FCC today. 

 Those WISPs who enjoy using this
list but who are not WISPA members should really consider joining WISPA.
WISPA members just paid $5000 in legal fees to prepare and file Comments
with the FCC to provide more broadband spectrum for you to use. Without
spectrum, there would be NO WISPs. Non-members of WISPA should realize
that nothing of value (except maybe love) is ever given away for free.
If you are a WISP that's reading this, please consider joining WISPA for
the low rate of only $250 per year (with payment plans available). WISPA
supports you. It's time for you to step up and show your support for
your industry and for WISPA. 

So Mike - Everyone would agree with your analysis that UHF antennas are
smaller than VHF antennas. Here is the additional information that
should help put the TV White Space antenna-size discussion into context.


The FCC's TV White Space rules (issued last November) were the result of
a VERY long and contentious process. The TV broadcasters did not want to
see the White Spaces used by anyone else. They claimed that television
broadcasting would be interfered with. In addition, there are already
half a million ILLEGAL unlicensed wireless microphones in use in the
U.S. Unfortunately they are often used by churches, musicians and other
groups that have a lot of political "clout". The result of the
multi-year FCC process to to decide if the TV White Spaces would be
released for non-licensed use of auctioned off to cell phone companies
was the FCC decision to allow unlicensed use BUT to create a set of
rules that "protected" both the incumbent television broadcasters (who
legitimately deserve protection) AND the illegal unlicensed microphone
users (who don't deserve protection). The FCC rules are 90% OK regarding
WISP license-free TVWS use but the last 10% can cause so much trouble
that WISP use of TVWS spectrum may turn out to be impractical. 

Here's the heart of the problem and the reason why a large television
broadcast type antenna may be needed. 

1. TV White Space will work best the more rural your area. If you are in
or near an urban area, there will be few or NO channels available. The
channels used by commercial TV broadcasters PLUS one channel above and
one channel below will be off-limits to eliminate adjacent-channel
interference. 

2. If you are in a more-rural area, there WILL be channels available but
the available channels will need to be shared. You can use one, your
neighbor network can use the same one, etc. 

3. You will not be able to pick just any channel. You must pick only an
available channel (if there is one) to avoid interfering with the TV
broadcasters. If only a VHF channel is available, then you will have to
use a VHF-sized antenna. If a UHF channel is available, you can pick
that and use a smaller UHF antenna. The NLOS characteristics will be
worse and the free-space path loss will be higher but you can pick UHF
to keep antenna size down if you want (and if available). 

4. Now for the bad news. Under current FCC rules, if a wireless mike
pops up near any of your base stations or customer locations, you have
to switch channels so you don't interfer with them.  To effectively
switch channels, you need a multiband antenna which is TV-antenna sized.
If there are no other available channels then you will need to go off
the air. 

5. You can see how variable and unreliable the channel-switching
situation is. It's completely un-workable. Not only will you need to use
large antennas to get broadband VHF-UHF capabilities but the propagation
characteristics will be different too so what works on one channel might
not work on another channel. This example really shows how "the devil is
in the details". Sure the FCC allows us to use the TV White Spaces but
with rules that practically make TVWS very impractical or un-useable.
The FCC just assumed that 1) channels would be available and 2)
channel-switching would work. These were bad assumptions for them to
make. 

6. WISPA has been petitioning the FCC for the last 9 months to get them
to adjust their rules to correct the microphone-sensing problem and a
few other problems like antenna height restrictions. WISPA's FCC filing
today again addressed these needed TVWS rules changes. We will keep
hammering away at the FCC until they adjust their rules and make TVWS
useable. 

This is kind of a long answer to the antenna-size question but hopefully
it has helped illustrate the situation and what WISPA is doing (for bo

Re: [WISPA] Ubquity SR71USB

[Chuck Profito]

Eje,  Will that connect with the new "Rocket's" in full duplex mode?

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of e...@wisp-router.com
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 2:12 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubquity SR71USB

We do. 

http://store.wisp-router.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=SR71%2DUSB&eq=&Tp=

195pcs in stock. 

/Eje
--Original Message--
From: 3-dB Networks
Sender: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
To: 'WISPA General List'
ReplyTo: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Ubquity SR71USB
Sent: Oct 23, 2009 15:59

Anyone know who has these in stock?

 

Thanks!

 

Daniel White

3-dB Networks

http://www.3dbnetworks.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/


Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile




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/

[WISPA] WISPA Webinar Announced

[Forbes Mercy]

This is to WISPA Members, if you're not a member you have time to join!

LEAVE YOUR CALENDAR OPEN FOR NOVEMBER 4th at 2PM Eastern, 11AM Pacific
and all time zones in between.  WISPA Promotions announce the first ever
Webinar.  This event is our outreach for members only, a personal visit
from a product manufacturer relevant to our industry.  We are hoping to
make this a regular event with different member manufacturers in our
industry. It is a pure question/answer session.

Several top administrators and highly-placed technical staff from a
manufacturer will be available to answer questions about any topic from
specifications to distribution/inventory control or future releases.
The first session will be with Ubiquity, the fast growing manufacturer
of many popular radios.  This idea came from a long thread of member
emails that essentially were 'guessing' about what these radios could or
could not do.  We consider these answers 'from the horse's mouth', and a
rare chance to talk to someone knowledgeable.  Again this is a session
for paid members only as a service of WISPA as we add value to your
membership.

The personnel attending from Ubiquity are:

Mike Ford - Technical Support and Applications Manager
Ben Moore - VP Bus. Dev.

We invite other manufacturers to email our Promotions Committee so we
may make this exclusive feature available on an ongoing basis. Simply
email for...@wispa.org and we can put together a schedule for these
sessions.  These are not sales presentations and video content is at the
option of the manufacturer.  The session will run 30-45 minutes for this
first one.  As it is our trial edition many of the rules and procedures
for future sessions will be based on how this session runs.  The exact
details of how to access, and the moderated rules for this forum will be
released Monday, November 2nd.

This Webinar is for you to learn more about the Vendors and their
equipment, we hope you attend and thank you for being a member of WISPA!

Forbes Mercy
WISPA Promotions Committee Chair




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] Holy cow!

[Jack Unger]

Hi Mike,

We just finished our work on WISPA's "Spectrum for Broadband" filing
and it goes to the FCC today. 

 Those WISPs who enjoy
using this list but who are not WISPA members should really consider
joining WISPA. WISPA members just paid $5000 in legal fees to prepare
and file Comments with the FCC to provide more broadband spectrum for
you to use. Without spectrum, there would be NO WISPs. Non-members of
WISPA should realize that nothing of value (except maybe love) is ever
given away for free.  If you are a WISP that's reading this, please
consider joining WISPA for the low rate of only $250 per year (with
payment plans available). WISPA supports you. It's time for you to step
up and show your support for your industry and for WISPA. 

So Mike - Everyone would agree with your analysis that UHF antennas are
smaller than VHF antennas. Here is the additional information that
should help put the TV White Space antenna-size discussion into
context. 

The FCC's TV White Space rules (issued last November) were the result
of a VERY long and contentious process. The TV broadcasters did not
want to see the White Spaces used by anyone else. They claimed that
television broadcasting would be interfered with. In addition, there
are already half a million ILLEGAL unlicensed wireless microphones in
use in the U.S. Unfortunately they are often used by churches,
musicians and other groups that have a lot of political "clout". The
result of the multi-year FCC process to to decide if the TV White
Spaces would be released for non-licensed use of auctioned off to cell
phone companies was the FCC decision to allow unlicensed use BUT to
create a set of rules that "protected" both the incumbent television
broadcasters (who legitimately deserve protection) AND the illegal
unlicensed microphone users (who don't deserve protection). The FCC
rules are 90% OK regarding WISP license-free TVWS use but the last 10%
can cause so much trouble that WISP use of TVWS spectrum may turn out
to be impractical. 

Here's the heart of the problem and the reason why a large television
broadcast type antenna may be needed. 

1. TV White Space will work best the more rural your area. If you are
in or near an urban area, there will be few or NO channels available.
The channels used by commercial TV broadcasters PLUS one channel above
and one channel below will be off-limits to eliminate adjacent-channel
interference. 

2. If you are in a more-rural area, there WILL be channels available
but the available channels will need to be shared. You can use one,
your neighbor network can use the same one, etc. 

3. You will not be able to pick just any channel. You must pick only an
available channel (if there is one) to avoid interfering with the TV
broadcasters. If only a VHF channel is available, then you will have to
use a VHF-sized antenna. If a UHF channel is available, you can pick
that and use a smaller UHF antenna. The NLOS characteristics will be
worse and the free-space path loss will be higher but you can pick UHF
to keep antenna size down if you want (and if available). 

4. Now for the bad news. Under current FCC rules, if a wireless mike
pops up near any of your base stations or customer locations, you have
to switch channels so you don't interfer with them.  To effectively
switch channels, you need a multiband antenna which is TV-antenna
sized. If there are no other available channels then you will need to
go off the air. 

5. You can see how variable and unreliable the channel-switching
situation is. It's completely un-workable. Not only will you need to
use large antennas to get broadband VHF-UHF capabilities but the
propagation characteristics will be different too so what works on one
channel might not work on another channel. This example really shows
how "the devil is in the details". Sure the FCC allows us to use the TV
White Spaces but with rules that practically make TVWS very impractical
or un-useable. The FCC just assumed that 1) channels would be available
and 2) channel-switching would work. These were bad assumptions for
them to make. 

6. WISPA has been petitioning the FCC for the last 9 months to get them
to adjust their rules to correct the microphone-sensing problem and a
few other problems like antenna height restrictions. WISPA's FCC filing
today again addressed these needed TVWS rules changes. We will keep
hammering away at the FCC until they adjust their rules and make TVWS
useable. 

This is kind of a long answer to the antenna-size question but
hopefully it has helped illustrate the situation and what WISPA is
doing (for both Members and non-members) to make the otherwise
very-valuable TVWS spectrum both available and useable. 

Respectfully, 

Jack Unger
Chair - WISPA FCC Committee




Mike wrote:

  Thanks Jack.  I am looking forward to your insight.

Mike Hammett was already so kind by referring to a wiki in a previous 
post.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_spaces_(radio)

Mike

At 02:31 PM 10/23/2009, yo

Re: [WISPA] Ubquity SR71USB

[eje]

We do. 

http://store.wisp-router.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=SR71%2DUSB&eq=&Tp=

195pcs in stock. 

/Eje
--Original Message--
From: 3-dB Networks
Sender: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
To: 'WISPA General List'
ReplyTo: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Ubquity SR71USB
Sent: Oct 23, 2009 15:59

Anyone know who has these in stock?

 

Thanks!

 

Daniel White

3-dB Networks

http://www.3dbnetworks.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/


Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile



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] juniper

[Josh Luthman]

Great, so it's following wireless-test!  Go MikroTik!

On 10/23/09, Nick Olsen  wrote:
> Well, its been running a week, stable. With a full BGP table.
> Where 3.24 plus couldn't run a full bgp table for more then 4 hours,
> without idling out and coming back.
> I understand a week isn't nothing, But since about 3.28 with routing test,
> bgp has been as stable as the machine its running on.
>
> Nick Olsen
> Brevard Wireless
> (321) 205-1100 x106
>
>
> 
>
> From: "Josh Luthman" 
> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 4:45 PM
> To: "n...@brevardwireless.com" , "WISPA General
> List" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] juniper
>
> I don't mean to be rude but 4.1 came out a week ago, how much testing
> could
> you have done?!
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
> improbable, must be the truth."
> --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Nick Olsen wrote:
>
>> Mikrotik BGP has come a long way. And is really stable in our testing.
>> running 4.1
>>
>> Nick Olsen
>> Brevard Wireless
>> (321) 205-1100 x106
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>> From: "jp"
>> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 3:29 PM
>> To: "wireless@wispa.org"
>> Subject: [WISPA] juniper
>>
>> Anyone use their routers? I'm wondering if they overstate their
> performance
>>
>> greatly or if they are conservative in their promises.
>>
>> I'm considering using one to replace an aging Cisco. The Cisco has been
>> reliable, but it's running out of steam with 150mbit going through it
>> pretty
>> steady, and low on memory for more BGP. Mikrotik I love, but I don't
> trust
>>
>> their BGP and software feature testing in new software releases for
>> something
>> this important.
>>
>> This Juniper is about $3k and has pretty nice specs.
>> http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/j-series/j2350/
>>
>> --
>> /*
>> Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
>> KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting
>> http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.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/
>>
>
> 
> 
> 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/
>


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

"When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
improbable, must be the truth."
--- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle



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] Ubquity SR71USB

[3-dB Networks]

Anyone know who has these in stock?

 

Thanks!

 

Daniel White

3-dB Networks

http://www.3dbnetworks.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] juniper

[Nick Olsen]

Well, its been running a week, stable. With a full BGP table.
Where 3.24 plus couldn't run a full bgp table for more then 4 hours, 
without idling out and coming back.
I understand a week isn't nothing, But since about 3.28 with routing test, 
bgp has been as stable as the machine its running on.

Nick Olsen
Brevard Wireless
(321) 205-1100 x106




From: "Josh Luthman" 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 4:45 PM
To: "n...@brevardwireless.com" , "WISPA General 
List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] juniper

I don't mean to be rude but 4.1 came out a week ago, how much testing 
could
you have done?!

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

"When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
improbable, must be the truth."
--- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Nick Olsen wrote:

> Mikrotik BGP has come a long way. And is really stable in our testing.
> running 4.1
>
> Nick Olsen
> Brevard Wireless
> (321) 205-1100 x106
>
>
> 
>
> From: "jp" 
> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 3:29 PM
> To: "wireless@wispa.org" 
> Subject: [WISPA] juniper
>
> Anyone use their routers? I'm wondering if they overstate their 
performance
>
> greatly or if they are conservative in their promises.
>
> I'm considering using one to replace an aging Cisco. The Cisco has been
> reliable, but it's running out of steam with 150mbit going through it
> pretty
> steady, and low on memory for more BGP. Mikrotik I love, but I don't 
trust
>
> their BGP and software feature testing in new software releases for
> something
> this important.
>
> This Juniper is about $3k and has pretty nice specs.
> http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/j-series/j2350/
>
> --
> /*
> Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
> KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting
> http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.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/
>



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] Keyon Communications

[Charles Wu]

Are you aware that Keyon is a publically traded company; I would start with 
that data

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=KEYO.OB

-Charles


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Mark McElvy
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 9:48 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Keyon Communications

We were solicited for purchase by this company today. Anyone have
anything to share about them?

 

Mark 




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] juniper

[Jeff Broadwick]

We do, it's name is Paul!  :-)

Jeff
 

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 4:41 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] juniper

Now if ImageStream had one that took MikroTik exports I would be in hog
heaven =)

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

"When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
improbable, must be the truth."
--- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Dylan Bouterse
wrote:

> Not so much. Maybe some similarities, but no. Juniper has a Cisco 
> config translator that is supposed to take an existing Cisco config 
> and translate into Juniper speak, like I needed to explain "config 
> translator". haha
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
> On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 4:09 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] juniper
>
> Dylan,
>
> Would you say the syntax is like Cisco?
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however 
> improbable, must be the truth."
> --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Dylan Bouterse
> wrote:
>
> > We have been rolling out Junipers to replace our tower routers and
> soon
> > our borders. There is a bit of a learning curve to their syntax but
> once
> > you get the hang of it, they are very nice.
> >
> > Dylan
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of jp
> > Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 3:29 PM
> > To: wireless@wispa.org
> > Subject: [WISPA] juniper
> >
> > Anyone use their routers? I'm wondering if they overstate their 
> > performance greatly or if they are conservative in their promises.
> >
> > I'm considering using one to replace an aging Cisco. The Cisco has
> been
> > reliable, but it's running out of steam with 150mbit going through 
> > it pretty steady, and low on memory for more BGP. Mikrotik I love, 
> > but I don't trust their BGP and software feature testing in new 
> > software releases for something this important.
> >
> > This Juniper is about $3k and has pretty nice specs.
> > http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/j-series/j235
> > 0/
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > /*
> > Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
> >KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting
> >  http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.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/
> >
>
>
> --
> --
> 
> 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/
>




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] juniper

[Josh Luthman]

I don't mean to be rude but 4.1 came out a week ago, how much testing could
you have done?!

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

"When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
improbable, must be the truth."
--- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Nick Olsen wrote:

> Mikrotik BGP has come a long way. And is really stable in our testing.
> running 4.1
>
> Nick Olsen
> Brevard Wireless
> (321) 205-1100 x106
>
>
> 
>
> From: "jp" 
> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 3:29 PM
> To: "wireless@wispa.org" 
> Subject: [WISPA] juniper
>
> Anyone use their routers? I'm wondering if they overstate their performance
>
> greatly or if they are conservative in their promises.
>
> I'm considering using one to replace an aging Cisco. The Cisco has been
> reliable, but it's running out of steam with 150mbit going through it
> pretty
> steady, and low on memory for more BGP. Mikrotik I love, but I don't trust
>
> their BGP and software feature testing in new software releases for
> something
> this important.
>
> This Juniper is about $3k and has pretty nice specs.
> http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/j-series/j2350/
>
> --
> /*
> Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
> KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting
> http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.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/
>



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] juniper

[Nick Olsen]

Mikrotik BGP has come a long way. And is really stable in our testing. 
running 4.1

Nick Olsen
Brevard Wireless
(321) 205-1100 x106




From: "jp" 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 3:29 PM
To: "wireless@wispa.org" 
Subject: [WISPA] juniper

Anyone use their routers? I'm wondering if they overstate their performance 

greatly or if they are conservative in their promises.

I'm considering using one to replace an aging Cisco. The Cisco has been 
reliable, but it's running out of steam with 150mbit going through it 
pretty 
steady, and low on memory for more BGP. Mikrotik I love, but I don't trust 

their BGP and software feature testing in new software releases for 
something 
this important.

This Juniper is about $3k and has pretty nice specs.
http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/j-series/j2350/

-- 
/*
Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting 
http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.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] juniper

[Josh Luthman]

Now if ImageStream had one that took MikroTik exports I would be in hog
heaven =)

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

"When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
improbable, must be the truth."
--- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Dylan Bouterse wrote:

> Not so much. Maybe some similarities, but no. Juniper has a Cisco config
> translator that is supposed to take an existing Cisco config and
> translate into Juniper speak, like I needed to explain "config
> translator". haha
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Josh Luthman
> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 4:09 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] juniper
>
> Dylan,
>
> Would you say the syntax is like Cisco?
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
> improbable, must be the truth."
> --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Dylan Bouterse
> wrote:
>
> > We have been rolling out Junipers to replace our tower routers and
> soon
> > our borders. There is a bit of a learning curve to their syntax but
> once
> > you get the hang of it, they are very nice.
> >
> > Dylan
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of jp
> > Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 3:29 PM
> > To: wireless@wispa.org
> > Subject: [WISPA] juniper
> >
> > Anyone use their routers? I'm wondering if they overstate their
> > performance
> > greatly or if they are conservative in their promises.
> >
> > I'm considering using one to replace an aging Cisco. The Cisco has
> been
> > reliable, but it's running out of steam with 150mbit going through it
> > pretty
> > steady, and low on memory for more BGP. Mikrotik I love, but I don't
> > trust
> > their BGP and software feature testing in new software releases for
> > something
> > this important.
> >
> > This Juniper is about $3k and has pretty nice specs.
> > http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/j-series/j2350/
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > /*
> > Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
> >KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting
> >  http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.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/
> >
>
>
> 
> 
> 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/
>



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] Holy cow!

[Mike]

Thanks Jack.  I am looking forward to your insight.

Mike Hammett was already so kind by referring to a wiki in a previous 
post.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_spaces_(radio)

Mike

At 02:31 PM 10/23/2009, you wrote:
>Mike,
>
>I'm just finishing up work on WISPA's "Spectrum for Broadband" FCC 
>filing which is due today but hang with me for another hour or so 
>and I'll give you some background information about  the FCC's TV 
>White Space rules as they currently stand. Once you have the context 
>(full view of the rules) I think you'll have a better view of why 
>larger (TV-type) antennas may be required for most future TV White 
>Space operators. No new understanding of physics is needed; just an 
>understanding of the current FCC rules, an understanding of what 
>channels may be available in what areas, and an understanding of why 
>you probably won't be able to simply pick a UHF channel and simply 
>"dwell" on it.
>
>jack
>
>
>Mike wrote:
>>
>>Jack:
>>
>>If your goal is to use VHF frequencies at 54 MHz then YES you will
>>need a large radiator!  If your goal is to use UHF frequencies at
>>300, or 500 MHz, then NO, you won't need a 'TV sized" antenna.  If
>>*MANY* 6 MHz wide allocations are made, then one would be stupid to
>>use a "do all" antenna for all frequencies.  Maybe I am missing
>>something here.  Perhaps a newly revised rules of physics?
>>
>>Mike Hammett, I am not just trying to be contrary but am willing to
>>learn.  UHF antennas are *MUCH* smaller than VHF antennas.
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>At 01:50 PM 10/23/2009, you wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Mike,
>>>
>>>You are correct. I'm deep into a final review of WISPA's Spectrum
>>>for Broadband FCC filing right this minute (well, actually all
>>>morning) but I plan to respond to Mike's points with more
>>>information that he may not have about the TV White Spaces FCC
>>>rules. I think once he has that additional information, he will
>>>understand why your (and my) conclusion about needing a "TV-sized"
>>>antenna is correct.
>>>
>>>jack
>>>
>>>
>>>Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>

The 30 meter antenna was misconstrued from the antenna height requirements.
It's required to be 10 meters or above for CPE use and no higher than 30
meters for AP use.

Why would a TV antenna or a TVWS antenna on the same frequency be any
different in size?  Maybe some missing elements if your antenna only covers
part of the band, but a full band antenna should be roughly the 
same size as
current TV antenna.  We have the use of 54 - 698 MHz (with the current rule
set, minus a few reserved channels).

Unless I'm missing something, which I doubt because Jack and I discussed
this at FISPA.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: "Mike" 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:10 PM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!



>
>Well the comments I've heard ARE ludicrous.  Antennas as big as a TV
>antenna, 30 meter antennas, and others.
>
>Free space path loss is greater at 5.8 GHz than at 2.4
>GHz.  Substantially.  Free space path loss at 700 MHz, or 600 or 500
>is also SUBSTANTIALLY lesser than at 2.4 GHz.
>
>Free space path loss is proportional to the square of the distance
>between the transmitter and receiver, and also proportional to the
>square of the FREQUENCY of the radio signal.
>
>The FREQUENCY effect of the free space path loss is directly coupled
>to the aperture of the antenna, which describes how sensitive an
>antenna is to an incoming electromagnetic wave for which it is
>resonant.  Lower frequency equates to a larger aperture, and a larger
>capture area for similar antennas, as compared to a much higher frequency.
>
>If it is indeed a narrow band, then of course the chances of self
>interference are there.  The propagation characteristics of UHF for
>fixed wireless are what cause me to want to "play" in this band
>instead of some new allocation in the microwave regions.  Think
>through the trees, over the horizon, near line of site possibilities.
>
>You also can't just reinvent the Yagi-Yuda or log periodic antenna
>either.  The sizes I stated for those frequencies ARE the full size
>of an antenna, not some miniaturized or "rabbit ear" antenna.
>
>Actually, I don't even think I'm arguing anything, just trying to
>dispel a belief that white space antennas are these huge
>monstrosities; they aren't.
>
>For what it's worth, my personal record for distance on UHF is around
>44,000 miles. REALLY!
>
>Mike
>
>At 12:20 PM 10/23/2009,Cameron wrote:
>
>
>>
>>It is not "ludacrous". Sure you can receive with a small yagi or pane

Re: [WISPA] juniper

[Dylan Bouterse]

Not so much. Maybe some similarities, but no. Juniper has a Cisco config
translator that is supposed to take an existing Cisco config and
translate into Juniper speak, like I needed to explain "config
translator". haha

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 4:09 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] juniper

Dylan,

Would you say the syntax is like Cisco?

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

"When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
improbable, must be the truth."
--- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Dylan Bouterse
wrote:

> We have been rolling out Junipers to replace our tower routers and
soon
> our borders. There is a bit of a learning curve to their syntax but
once
> you get the hang of it, they are very nice.
>
> Dylan
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
On
> Behalf Of jp
> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 3:29 PM
> To: wireless@wispa.org
> Subject: [WISPA] juniper
>
> Anyone use their routers? I'm wondering if they overstate their
> performance
> greatly or if they are conservative in their promises.
>
> I'm considering using one to replace an aging Cisco. The Cisco has
been
> reliable, but it's running out of steam with 150mbit going through it
> pretty
> steady, and low on memory for more BGP. Mikrotik I love, but I don't
> trust
> their BGP and software feature testing in new software releases for
> something
> this important.
>
> This Juniper is about $3k and has pretty nice specs.
> http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/j-series/j2350/
>
>
>
> --
> /*
> Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
>KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting
>  http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.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/
>




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] juniper

[Bill Price]

I have two of the J2350s. They work very well. 

Bill Price
SCS

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of jp
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 3:29 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] juniper

Anyone use their routers? I'm wondering if they overstate their performance 
greatly or if they are conservative in their promises.

I'm considering using one to replace an aging Cisco. The Cisco has been 
reliable, but it's running out of steam with 150mbit going through it pretty

steady, and low on memory for more BGP. Mikrotik I love, but I don't trust 
their BGP and software feature testing in new software releases for
something 
this important.

This Juniper is about $3k and has pretty nice specs.
http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/j-series/j2350/



-- 
/*
Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting 
 http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.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] Holy cow!

[ccrum]

We're on the same page now. We've been working on circular designs not 
just for UHF but uW also. I too think there are major benefits here. We 
design, manufacture, and use all our tower antennas (please...no remarks 
about certification) and really think there is a benefit to circular 
pol. Nice thing about them too, they are very broadband by nature and 
you can always build a choke or filter to filter out unwanted bands. 
This will most likely be the way things end up. As for the TVRO dishes, 
when I was a boy my parents used to ship me off to my grandparent's in 
Alabama for the summers. My grandfather, who founded the Army missile 
school at Redstone, built an 18 ft dish out of wood and aluminum and 
designed his own tracking device so he could get "free cable." I got to 
help. I wonder where my interest in this stuff comes from?

Cameron

Mike wrote:
> Cameron:
>
> Great, some good dialogue.  When I used the example of a LPDA or 
> Yagi, I was trying to scale the antenna to something easy to 
> visualize.  Everyone knows what a Yagi, or as has been used as 
> example -- the "TV" antenna or log periodic look like.  1/4 wave and 
> 1/2 wave radiator lengths are easy to calculate AND visualize.  The 
> solution will no doubt be other than either.
>
> Necessity is the mother of invention.  If you build it they will 
> come.  Most potential customers that would benefit from a 2 1/2 foot 
> by 2 1/2 foot panel antenna, at least in my market, wouldn't balk at 
> such a device if it meant they could finally get "Internet."
>
> I still believe there are many great innovations in antenna 
> technology still to come. I believe one innovation will be new ways 
> of laying out the elements in a multi-element patch.  If you can 
> increase the capture area or aperture of a radiator, it will respond 
> to signals more easily.  Maybe some sort of fractal element is the 
> answer.  I think circular polarity at UHF frequencies also has great 
> potential.  You could reuse frequencies by deploying opposite 
> polarity sense;  A left hand circularly polarized signal would be -20 
> dBc when looking at a right hand circular polarity source.  Either a 
> vertically or horizontally polarized signal would be -8 dBc when 
> received by either left or right.
>
> Another thing not to lose sight of is that lower practical gains will 
> be usable compared to microwave, because of that larger aperture.  A 
> 9 dBi or dBc radiator might work as well or better than a 12 or 15 
> dBi antenna at 5.8 GHz.
>
> Yes they will be bigger.  Will people balk?  I hated the Taurus when 
> they first came out.  When they redid the Jeep Cherokee I hated 
> it.  It grew on me.  Remember the TVRO dishes people had in their 
> yards?  Ever lived next door to a ham?  :-)
>
> Friendly Regards,
>
> Mike Gilchrist
>
>
> At 02:08 PM 10/23/2009, you wrote:
>   
>> Mike, you are certainly correct about the propagation characteristics.
>> This is both good and bad depending on how people plan to deploy. I
>> think that a lot of people are thinking that this space will let you
>> have a self installed, desktop unit because of the NLOS and indoor
>> penetration. My point is that units like these would have trouble on the
>> uplink because they would have low power and possibly negative gain. A
>> yagi, while a good technical solution is visibly unattractive and I know
>> that many of my customers would not allow me to install one. A panel
>> with similar gain characteristics to a yagi will be large (compared to
>> what people are used to) at these frequencies, again a barrier to
>> overcome to convince some customers. I'm not arguing either...30m is way
>> out there, but 24x24 panel is not, and would probably still be pretty
>> low gain, depending on if it is a patch, array of dipoles, or whatever.
>> That size antenna on the roof will be a turn off to a lot of customers.
>> Also, on the towers, to get decent gain (assuming that the power
>> limitations will be very low) on a linearly polarized, broad beam
>> antenna, the antenna will be larger than anything people have seen to
>> date. Yagi's and lp's won't work here. Again a lot will depend on how
>> the networks are designed and deployed, but my feeling is that because
>> of the (assumed) power constraints that will most likely be placed on
>> the band, and the size limitations that will be a necessity on the
>> towers, a given network may well end up with more towers, not fewer as
>> one would assume because of the better propagation characteristics.
>> Lower frequency is not the end all panacea that many are hoping for.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Cameron
>>
>> Mike wrote:
>> 
>>> Well the comments I've heard ARE ludicrous.  Antennas as big as a TV
>>> antenna, 30 meter antennas, and others.
>>>
>>> Free space path loss is greater at 5.8 GHz than at 2.4
>>> GHz.  Substantially.  Free space path loss at 700 MHz, or 600 or 500
>>> is also SUBSTANTIALLY lesser than at 2.4 GHz.
>>>
>>> Free space path loss is

Re: [WISPA] juniper

[Butch Evans]

On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 16:09 -0400, Josh Luthman wrote: 
> Would you say the syntax is like Cisco?

NOT EVEN CLOSE!  :-)

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





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] juniper

[Butch Evans]

On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 15:29 -0400, jp wrote: 
> Anyone use their routers? I'm wondering if they overstate their performance 
> greatly or if they are conservative in their promises.
> 
> I'm considering using one to replace an aging Cisco. The Cisco has been 
> reliable, but it's running out of steam with 150mbit going through it pretty 
> steady, and low on memory for more BGP. Mikrotik I love, but I don't trust 
> their BGP and software feature testing in new software releases for something 
> this important.
> 
> This Juniper is about $3k and has pretty nice specs.
> http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/j-series/j2350/

What interfaces to you need?  I have used Juniper in the past and found
them to be pretty decent routers.  $3k does not sound like what is
pictured there, though.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





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] juniper

[Josh Luthman]

Dylan,

Would you say the syntax is like Cisco?

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

"When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
improbable, must be the truth."
--- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Dylan Bouterse wrote:

> We have been rolling out Junipers to replace our tower routers and soon
> our borders. There is a bit of a learning curve to their syntax but once
> you get the hang of it, they are very nice.
>
> Dylan
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of jp
> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 3:29 PM
> To: wireless@wispa.org
> Subject: [WISPA] juniper
>
> Anyone use their routers? I'm wondering if they overstate their
> performance
> greatly or if they are conservative in their promises.
>
> I'm considering using one to replace an aging Cisco. The Cisco has been
> reliable, but it's running out of steam with 150mbit going through it
> pretty
> steady, and low on memory for more BGP. Mikrotik I love, but I don't
> trust
> their BGP and software feature testing in new software releases for
> something
> this important.
>
> This Juniper is about $3k and has pretty nice specs.
> http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/j-series/j2350/
>
>
>
> --
> /*
> Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
>KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting
>  http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.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/
>



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] juniper

[Dylan Bouterse]

We have been rolling out Junipers to replace our tower routers and soon
our borders. There is a bit of a learning curve to their syntax but once
you get the hang of it, they are very nice.

Dylan

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of jp
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 3:29 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] juniper

Anyone use their routers? I'm wondering if they overstate their
performance 
greatly or if they are conservative in their promises.

I'm considering using one to replace an aging Cisco. The Cisco has been 
reliable, but it's running out of steam with 150mbit going through it
pretty 
steady, and low on memory for more BGP. Mikrotik I love, but I don't
trust 
their BGP and software feature testing in new software releases for
something 
this important.

This Juniper is about $3k and has pretty nice specs.
http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/j-series/j2350/



-- 
/*
Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting 
 http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.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] Holy cow!

[Mike]

I love the dialog.  The 34" antenna is a LPDA and wide band.  There 
is going to have to be segmentation in the bands.  Very few antenna 
systems have the wide band characteristics of a log periodic.  Maybe 
that WILL be the normal antenna for the new technology, but it is 
quite easy to make other types of gain antennas with a smaller 
footprint.  Kind of like we have different versions of 5 GHz 
antennas, there will no doubt be specific choices for specific 
portions of the spectrum.

Thanks guys for sharing the height thing.  Such restrictions on the 
"production" plan won't work.  If the goal is to allow such use in an 
urban setting, the modulation technique would have to be able to 
survive severe multipath.  I'll have to think about the AP on the 
ground and the client on the roof.  Does that make sense?  It would 
certainly keep interference to the AP down.

Mike


At 02:22 PM 10/23/2009, Mike Hammett wrote:
>Due to the number of channels and the likelihood of channel bonding, there's
>not going to be an antenna that covers from 692 - 698 MHz, then another that
>covers 686 - 692 MHz.  it also depends on the area.  Maybe the broadcasters
>are all sitting on channels 35 - 50, forcing you to use the lower UHF and
>VHF channels.  It is possible (hopefully) that we'll have gear that does 3,
>4, 5 channels bonded together.
>
>http://www.winegarddirect.com/cview.asp?d=winegard-television-(tv)-antennas&c=UHF%20Only%20Antennas
>
>That page will have antenna sizes and gains for TV UHF and VHF antenna.
>
>A 22"x34" only has a 9 - 11.5 dB gain.
>A 32"x27"x93" only  has 12 - 16 dB gain.
>
>Those are only UHF.
>
>
>-
>Mike Hammett
>Intelligent Computing Solutions
>http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
>--
>From: "Mike" 
>Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 2:06 PM
>To: "WISPA General List" 
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!
>
> > Jack:
> >
> > If your goal is to use VHF frequencies at 54 MHz then YES you will
> > need a large radiator!  If your goal is to use UHF frequencies at
> > 300, or 500 MHz, then NO, you won't need a 'TV sized" antenna.  If
> > *MANY* 6 MHz wide allocations are made, then one would be stupid to
> > use a "do all" antenna for all frequencies.  Maybe I am missing
> > something here.  Perhaps a newly revised rules of physics?
> >
> > Mike Hammett, I am not just trying to be contrary but am willing to
> > learn.  UHF antennas are *MUCH* smaller than VHF antennas.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > At 01:50 PM 10/23/2009, you wrote:
> >>Mike,
> >>
> >>You are correct. I'm deep into a final review of WISPA's Spectrum
> >>for Broadband FCC filing right this minute (well, actually all
> >>morning) but I plan to respond to Mike's points with more
> >>information that he may not have about the TV White Spaces FCC
> >>rules. I think once he has that additional information, he will
> >>understand why your (and my) conclusion about needing a "TV-sized"
> >>antenna is correct.
> >>
> >>jack
> >>
> >>
> >>Mike Hammett wrote:
> >>>
> >>>The 30 meter antenna was misconstrued from the antenna height
> >>>requirements.
> >>>It's required to be 10 meters or above for CPE use and no higher than 30
> >>>meters for AP use.
> >>>
> >>>Why would a TV antenna or a TVWS antenna on the same frequency be any
> >>>different in size?  Maybe some missing elements if your antenna only
> >>>covers
> >>>part of the band, but a full band antenna should be roughly the same size
> >>>as
> >>>current TV antenna.  We have the use of 54 - 698 MHz (with the current
> >>>rule
> >>>set, minus a few reserved channels).
> >>>
> >>>Unless I'm missing something, which I doubt because Jack and I discussed
> >>>this at FISPA.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>-
> >>>Mike Hammett
> >>>Intelligent Computing Solutions
> >>>http://www.ics-il.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>From: "Mike" 
> >>>Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:10 PM
> >>>To: "WISPA General List" 
> >>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!
> >>>
> >>>
> 
> Well the comments I've heard ARE ludicrous.  Antennas as big as a TV
> antenna, 30 meter antennas, and others.
> 
> Free space path loss is greater at 5.8 GHz than at 2.4
> GHz.  Substantially.  Free space path loss at 700 MHz, or 600 or 500
> is also SUBSTANTIALLY lesser than at 2.4 GHz.
> 
> Free space path loss is proportional to the square of the distance
> between the transmitter and receiver, and also proportional to the
> square of the FREQUENCY of the radio signal.
> 
> The FREQUENCY effect of the free space path loss is directly coupled
> to the aperture of the antenna, which describes how sensitive an
> antenna is to an incoming electromagnetic wave for which it is
> resonant.  Lower frequency equates to a larger aperture, and a larger
> capture area for similar antennas, as compared to a much higher
> frequency.
> 
>

Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!

[Mike]

Cameron:

Great, some good dialogue.  When I used the example of a LPDA or 
Yagi, I was trying to scale the antenna to something easy to 
visualize.  Everyone knows what a Yagi, or as has been used as 
example -- the "TV" antenna or log periodic look like.  1/4 wave and 
1/2 wave radiator lengths are easy to calculate AND visualize.  The 
solution will no doubt be other than either.

Necessity is the mother of invention.  If you build it they will 
come.  Most potential customers that would benefit from a 2 1/2 foot 
by 2 1/2 foot panel antenna, at least in my market, wouldn't balk at 
such a device if it meant they could finally get "Internet."

I still believe there are many great innovations in antenna 
technology still to come. I believe one innovation will be new ways 
of laying out the elements in a multi-element patch.  If you can 
increase the capture area or aperture of a radiator, it will respond 
to signals more easily.  Maybe some sort of fractal element is the 
answer.  I think circular polarity at UHF frequencies also has great 
potential.  You could reuse frequencies by deploying opposite 
polarity sense;  A left hand circularly polarized signal would be -20 
dBc when looking at a right hand circular polarity source.  Either a 
vertically or horizontally polarized signal would be -8 dBc when 
received by either left or right.

Another thing not to lose sight of is that lower practical gains will 
be usable compared to microwave, because of that larger aperture.  A 
9 dBi or dBc radiator might work as well or better than a 12 or 15 
dBi antenna at 5.8 GHz.

Yes they will be bigger.  Will people balk?  I hated the Taurus when 
they first came out.  When they redid the Jeep Cherokee I hated 
it.  It grew on me.  Remember the TVRO dishes people had in their 
yards?  Ever lived next door to a ham?  :-)

Friendly Regards,

Mike Gilchrist


At 02:08 PM 10/23/2009, you wrote:
>Mike, you are certainly correct about the propagation characteristics.
>This is both good and bad depending on how people plan to deploy. I
>think that a lot of people are thinking that this space will let you
>have a self installed, desktop unit because of the NLOS and indoor
>penetration. My point is that units like these would have trouble on the
>uplink because they would have low power and possibly negative gain. A
>yagi, while a good technical solution is visibly unattractive and I know
>that many of my customers would not allow me to install one. A panel
>with similar gain characteristics to a yagi will be large (compared to
>what people are used to) at these frequencies, again a barrier to
>overcome to convince some customers. I'm not arguing either...30m is way
>out there, but 24x24 panel is not, and would probably still be pretty
>low gain, depending on if it is a patch, array of dipoles, or whatever.
>That size antenna on the roof will be a turn off to a lot of customers.
>Also, on the towers, to get decent gain (assuming that the power
>limitations will be very low) on a linearly polarized, broad beam
>antenna, the antenna will be larger than anything people have seen to
>date. Yagi's and lp's won't work here. Again a lot will depend on how
>the networks are designed and deployed, but my feeling is that because
>of the (assumed) power constraints that will most likely be placed on
>the band, and the size limitations that will be a necessity on the
>towers, a given network may well end up with more towers, not fewer as
>one would assume because of the better propagation characteristics.
>Lower frequency is not the end all panacea that many are hoping for.
>
>Regards,
>
>Cameron
>
>Mike wrote:
> > Well the comments I've heard ARE ludicrous.  Antennas as big as a TV
> > antenna, 30 meter antennas, and others.
> >
> > Free space path loss is greater at 5.8 GHz than at 2.4
> > GHz.  Substantially.  Free space path loss at 700 MHz, or 600 or 500
> > is also SUBSTANTIALLY lesser than at 2.4 GHz.
> >
> > Free space path loss is proportional to the square of the distance
> > between the transmitter and receiver, and also proportional to the
> > square of the FREQUENCY of the radio signal.
> >
> > The FREQUENCY effect of the free space path loss is directly coupled
> > to the aperture of the antenna, which describes how sensitive an
> > antenna is to an incoming electromagnetic wave for which it is
> > resonant.  Lower frequency equates to a larger aperture, and a larger
> > capture area for similar antennas, as compared to a much higher frequency.
> >
> > If it is indeed a narrow band, then of course the chances of self
> > interference are there.  The propagation characteristics of UHF for
> > fixed wireless are what cause me to want to "play" in this band
> > instead of some new allocation in the microwave regions.  Think
> > through the trees, over the horizon, near line of site possibilities.
> >
> > You also can't just reinvent the Yagi-Yuda or log periodic antenna
> > either.  The sizes I stated for those frequencies 

Re: [WISPA] juniper

[Josh Luthman]

Juniper as I know the history are the guys that left Cisco and redid
the router to allow major high traffic networks.

I agree - ImageStream is a great router.  Great price for what it offers.

On 10/23/09, Scott Reed  wrote:
> You might want to look at ImageStream as well.
>
> jp wrote:
>> Anyone use their routers? I'm wondering if they overstate their
>> performance
>> greatly or if they are conservative in their promises.
>>
>> I'm considering using one to replace an aging Cisco. The Cisco has been
>> reliable, but it's running out of steam with 150mbit going through it
>> pretty
>> steady, and low on memory for more BGP. Mikrotik I love, but I don't trust
>>
>> their BGP and software feature testing in new software releases for
>> something
>> this important.
>>
>> This Juniper is about $3k and has pretty nice specs.
>> http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/j-series/j2350/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.27/2453 - Release Date: 10/23/09
>> 06:56:00
>>
>>
>
> --
> Scott Reed
> Sr. Systems Engineer
> GAB Midwest
> 1-800-363-1544 x4000
> Cell: 260-273-7239
>
>
>
> 
> 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/
>


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

"When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
improbable, must be the truth."
--- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle



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] juniper

[Joe Fiero]

We have 7 IS routers and they have been the only component in our systems to
deliver 100%, 100% of the time.  Even survived a siye-killing tower hit by
lightning that took out everything else and fried the Cat-5 coming down the
tower.  Components were toasted on both sides of the IS an it was untouched.
 

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Scott Reed
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 3:36 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] juniper

You might want to look at ImageStream as well.

jp wrote:
> Anyone use their routers? I'm wondering if they overstate their 
> performance greatly or if they are conservative in their promises.
>
> I'm considering using one to replace an aging Cisco. The Cisco has 
> been reliable, but it's running out of steam with 150mbit going 
> through it pretty steady, and low on memory for more BGP. Mikrotik I 
> love, but I don't trust their BGP and software feature testing in new 
> software releases for something this important.
>
> This Juniper is about $3k and has pretty nice specs.
> http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/j-series/j2350/
>
>
>
>   
> --
> --
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.27/2453 - Release Date: 
> 10/23/09 06:56:00
>
>   

--
Scott Reed
Sr. Systems Engineer
GAB Midwest
1-800-363-1544 x4000
Cell: 260-273-7239





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] juniper

[Scott Reed]

You might want to look at ImageStream as well.

jp wrote:
> Anyone use their routers? I'm wondering if they overstate their performance 
> greatly or if they are conservative in their promises.
>
> I'm considering using one to replace an aging Cisco. The Cisco has been 
> reliable, but it's running out of steam with 150mbit going through it pretty 
> steady, and low on memory for more BGP. Mikrotik I love, but I don't trust 
> their BGP and software feature testing in new software releases for something 
> this important.
>
> This Juniper is about $3k and has pretty nice specs.
> http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/j-series/j2350/
>
>
>
>   
> 
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.27/2453 - Release Date: 10/23/09 
> 06:56:00
>
>   

-- 
Scott Reed
Sr. Systems Engineer
GAB Midwest
1-800-363-1544 x4000
Cell: 260-273-7239




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] Holy cow!

[Jack Unger]

Mike,

I'm just finishing up work on WISPA's "Spectrum for Broadband" FCC
filing which is due today but hang with me for another hour or so and
I'll give you some background information about  the FCC's TV White
Space rules as they currently stand. Once you have the context (full
view of the rules) I think you'll have a better view of why larger
(TV-type) antennas may be required for most future TV White Space
operators. No new understanding of physics is needed; just an
understanding of the current FCC rules, an understanding of what
channels may be available in what areas, and an understanding of why
you probably won't be able to simply pick a UHF channel and simply
"dwell" on it. 

jack


Mike wrote:

  Jack:

If your goal is to use VHF frequencies at 54 MHz then YES you will 
need a large radiator!  If your goal is to use UHF frequencies at 
300, or 500 MHz, then NO, you won't need a 'TV sized" antenna.  If 
*MANY* 6 MHz wide allocations are made, then one would be stupid to 
use a "do all" antenna for all frequencies.  Maybe I am missing 
something here.  Perhaps a newly revised rules of physics?

Mike Hammett, I am not just trying to be contrary but am willing to 
learn.  UHF antennas are *MUCH* smaller than VHF antennas.

Mike

At 01:50 PM 10/23/2009, you wrote:
  
  
Mike,

You are correct. I'm deep into a final review of WISPA's Spectrum 
for Broadband FCC filing right this minute (well, actually all 
morning) but I plan to respond to Mike's points with more 
information that he may not have about the TV White Spaces FCC 
rules. I think once he has that additional information, he will 
understand why your (and my) conclusion about needing a "TV-sized" 
antenna is correct.

jack


Mike Hammett wrote:


  The 30 meter antenna was misconstrued from the antenna height requirements.
It's required to be 10 meters or above for CPE use and no higher than 30
meters for AP use.

Why would a TV antenna or a TVWS antenna on the same frequency be any
different in size?  Maybe some missing elements if your antenna only covers
part of the band, but a full band antenna should be roughly the same size as
current TV antenna.  We have the use of 54 - 698 MHz (with the current rule
set, minus a few reserved channels).

Unless I'm missing something, which I doubt because Jack and I discussed
this at FISPA.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: "Mike" 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:10 PM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!


  
  
Well the comments I've heard ARE ludicrous.  Antennas as big as a TV
antenna, 30 meter antennas, and others.

Free space path loss is greater at 5.8 GHz than at 2.4
GHz.  Substantially.  Free space path loss at 700 MHz, or 600 or 500
is also SUBSTANTIALLY lesser than at 2.4 GHz.

Free space path loss is proportional to the square of the distance
between the transmitter and receiver, and also proportional to the
square of the FREQUENCY of the radio signal.

The FREQUENCY effect of the free space path loss is directly coupled
to the aperture of the antenna, which describes how sensitive an
antenna is to an incoming electromagnetic wave for which it is
resonant.  Lower frequency equates to a larger aperture, and a larger
capture area for similar antennas, as compared to a much higher frequency.

If it is indeed a narrow band, then of course the chances of self
interference are there.  The propagation characteristics of UHF for
fixed wireless are what cause me to want to "play" in this band
instead of some new allocation in the microwave regions.  Think
through the trees, over the horizon, near line of site possibilities.

You also can't just reinvent the Yagi-Yuda or log periodic antenna
either.  The sizes I stated for those frequencies ARE the full size
of an antenna, not some miniaturized or "rabbit ear" antenna.

Actually, I don't even think I'm arguing anything, just trying to
dispel a belief that white space antennas are these huge
monstrosities; they aren't.

For what it's worth, my personal record for distance on UHF is around
44,000 miles. REALLY!

Mike

At 12:20 PM 10/23/2009,Cameron wrote:



  It is not "ludacrous". Sure you can receive with a small yagi or panel
or heck, even a set of rabbit ears. It's the uplink that will be the
major issue. If you are using small cells for coverage you can probably
get away with "smaller" antennas on the towers, but this will limit your
uplink capability if you are wanting a desktop type CPE or even a small
roof mount antenna. Small cell coverage like with uW freqs will have to
be carefully planned due to the propagation characteristics and the
potential for self interfernece on such a narrow band. It's not
impossible, just more complicated.

Cameron

Mike wrote:

  
  
At 704 MHz, a quarter wave is about 4 inches long.  The driven
element of 

[WISPA] juniper

[jp]

Anyone use their routers? I'm wondering if they overstate their performance 
greatly or if they are conservative in their promises.

I'm considering using one to replace an aging Cisco. The Cisco has been 
reliable, but it's running out of steam with 150mbit going through it pretty 
steady, and low on memory for more BGP. Mikrotik I love, but I don't trust 
their BGP and software feature testing in new software releases for something 
this important.

This Juniper is about $3k and has pretty nice specs.
http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/j-series/j2350/



-- 
/*
Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting 
 http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.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] Holy cow!

[Mike Hammett]

Due to the number of channels and the likelihood of channel bonding, there's 
not going to be an antenna that covers from 692 - 698 MHz, then another that 
covers 686 - 692 MHz.  it also depends on the area.  Maybe the broadcasters 
are all sitting on channels 35 - 50, forcing you to use the lower UHF and 
VHF channels.  It is possible (hopefully) that we'll have gear that does 3, 
4, 5 channels bonded together.

http://www.winegarddirect.com/cview.asp?d=winegard-television-(tv)-antennas&c=UHF%20Only%20Antennas

That page will have antenna sizes and gains for TV UHF and VHF antenna.

A 22"x34" only has a 9 - 11.5 dB gain.
A 32"x27"x93" only  has 12 - 16 dB gain.

Those are only UHF.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: "Mike" 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 2:06 PM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!

> Jack:
>
> If your goal is to use VHF frequencies at 54 MHz then YES you will
> need a large radiator!  If your goal is to use UHF frequencies at
> 300, or 500 MHz, then NO, you won't need a 'TV sized" antenna.  If
> *MANY* 6 MHz wide allocations are made, then one would be stupid to
> use a "do all" antenna for all frequencies.  Maybe I am missing
> something here.  Perhaps a newly revised rules of physics?
>
> Mike Hammett, I am not just trying to be contrary but am willing to
> learn.  UHF antennas are *MUCH* smaller than VHF antennas.
>
> Mike
>
> At 01:50 PM 10/23/2009, you wrote:
>>Mike,
>>
>>You are correct. I'm deep into a final review of WISPA's Spectrum
>>for Broadband FCC filing right this minute (well, actually all
>>morning) but I plan to respond to Mike's points with more
>>information that he may not have about the TV White Spaces FCC
>>rules. I think once he has that additional information, he will
>>understand why your (and my) conclusion about needing a "TV-sized"
>>antenna is correct.
>>
>>jack
>>
>>
>>Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>
>>>The 30 meter antenna was misconstrued from the antenna height 
>>>requirements.
>>>It's required to be 10 meters or above for CPE use and no higher than 30
>>>meters for AP use.
>>>
>>>Why would a TV antenna or a TVWS antenna on the same frequency be any
>>>different in size?  Maybe some missing elements if your antenna only 
>>>covers
>>>part of the band, but a full band antenna should be roughly the same size 
>>>as
>>>current TV antenna.  We have the use of 54 - 698 MHz (with the current 
>>>rule
>>>set, minus a few reserved channels).
>>>
>>>Unless I'm missing something, which I doubt because Jack and I discussed
>>>this at FISPA.
>>>
>>>
>>>-
>>>Mike Hammett
>>>Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>>http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>From: "Mike" 
>>>Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:10 PM
>>>To: "WISPA General List" 
>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!
>>>
>>>

Well the comments I've heard ARE ludicrous.  Antennas as big as a TV
antenna, 30 meter antennas, and others.

Free space path loss is greater at 5.8 GHz than at 2.4
GHz.  Substantially.  Free space path loss at 700 MHz, or 600 or 500
is also SUBSTANTIALLY lesser than at 2.4 GHz.

Free space path loss is proportional to the square of the distance
between the transmitter and receiver, and also proportional to the
square of the FREQUENCY of the radio signal.

The FREQUENCY effect of the free space path loss is directly coupled
to the aperture of the antenna, which describes how sensitive an
antenna is to an incoming electromagnetic wave for which it is
resonant.  Lower frequency equates to a larger aperture, and a larger
capture area for similar antennas, as compared to a much higher 
frequency.

If it is indeed a narrow band, then of course the chances of self
interference are there.  The propagation characteristics of UHF for
fixed wireless are what cause me to want to "play" in this band
instead of some new allocation in the microwave regions.  Think
through the trees, over the horizon, near line of site possibilities.

You also can't just reinvent the Yagi-Yuda or log periodic antenna
either.  The sizes I stated for those frequencies ARE the full size
of an antenna, not some miniaturized or "rabbit ear" antenna.

Actually, I don't even think I'm arguing anything, just trying to
dispel a belief that white space antennas are these huge
monstrosities; they aren't.

For what it's worth, my personal record for distance on UHF is around
44,000 miles. REALLY!

Mike

At 12:20 PM 10/23/2009,Cameron wrote:

>
>It is not "ludacrous". Sure you can receive with a small yagi or panel
>or heck, even a set of rabbit ears. It's the uplink that will be the
>major issue. If you are using small cells for c

Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!

[Mike Hammett]

Not as many may be opposed as you'd think.  After all, up until DBS, a 
significant number of people had those antennas on their house for TV.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: "ccrum" 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 2:08 PM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!

> Mike, you are certainly correct about the propagation characteristics.
> This is both good and bad depending on how people plan to deploy. I
> think that a lot of people are thinking that this space will let you
> have a self installed, desktop unit because of the NLOS and indoor
> penetration. My point is that units like these would have trouble on the
> uplink because they would have low power and possibly negative gain. A
> yagi, while a good technical solution is visibly unattractive and I know
> that many of my customers would not allow me to install one. A panel
> with similar gain characteristics to a yagi will be large (compared to
> what people are used to) at these frequencies, again a barrier to
> overcome to convince some customers. I'm not arguing either...30m is way
> out there, but 24x24 panel is not, and would probably still be pretty
> low gain, depending on if it is a patch, array of dipoles, or whatever.
> That size antenna on the roof will be a turn off to a lot of customers.
> Also, on the towers, to get decent gain (assuming that the power
> limitations will be very low) on a linearly polarized, broad beam
> antenna, the antenna will be larger than anything people have seen to
> date. Yagi's and lp's won't work here. Again a lot will depend on how
> the networks are designed and deployed, but my feeling is that because
> of the (assumed) power constraints that will most likely be placed on
> the band, and the size limitations that will be a necessity on the
> towers, a given network may well end up with more towers, not fewer as
> one would assume because of the better propagation characteristics.
> Lower frequency is not the end all panacea that many are hoping for.
>
> Regards,
>
> Cameron
>
> Mike wrote:
>> Well the comments I've heard ARE ludicrous.  Antennas as big as a TV
>> antenna, 30 meter antennas, and others.
>>
>> Free space path loss is greater at 5.8 GHz than at 2.4
>> GHz.  Substantially.  Free space path loss at 700 MHz, or 600 or 500
>> is also SUBSTANTIALLY lesser than at 2.4 GHz.
>>
>> Free space path loss is proportional to the square of the distance
>> between the transmitter and receiver, and also proportional to the
>> square of the FREQUENCY of the radio signal.
>>
>> The FREQUENCY effect of the free space path loss is directly coupled
>> to the aperture of the antenna, which describes how sensitive an
>> antenna is to an incoming electromagnetic wave for which it is
>> resonant.  Lower frequency equates to a larger aperture, and a larger
>> capture area for similar antennas, as compared to a much higher 
>> frequency.
>>
>> If it is indeed a narrow band, then of course the chances of self
>> interference are there.  The propagation characteristics of UHF for
>> fixed wireless are what cause me to want to "play" in this band
>> instead of some new allocation in the microwave regions.  Think
>> through the trees, over the horizon, near line of site possibilities.
>>
>> You also can't just reinvent the Yagi-Yuda or log periodic antenna
>> either.  The sizes I stated for those frequencies ARE the full size
>> of an antenna, not some miniaturized or "rabbit ear" antenna.
>>
>> Actually, I don't even think I'm arguing anything, just trying to
>> dispel a belief that white space antennas are these huge
>> monstrosities; they aren't.
>>
>> For what it's worth, my personal record for distance on UHF is around
>> 44,000 miles. REALLY!
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> At 12:20 PM 10/23/2009,Cameron wrote:
>>
>>> It is not "ludacrous". Sure you can receive with a small yagi or panel
>>> or heck, even a set of rabbit ears. It's the uplink that will be the
>>> major issue. If you are using small cells for coverage you can probably
>>> get away with "smaller" antennas on the towers, but this will limit your
>>> uplink capability if you are wanting a desktop type CPE or even a small
>>> roof mount antenna. Small cell coverage like with uW freqs will have to
>>> be carefully planned due to the propagation characteristics and the
>>> potential for self interfernece on such a narrow band. It's not
>>> impossible, just more complicated.
>>>
>>> Cameron
>>>
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>
 At 704 MHz, a quarter wave is about 4 inches long.  The driven
 element of a Yagi would be about 8 inches long.  They would be way
 shorter than 30 meters, or what do you mean?  Think about the 900 MHz
 antennas you see but just a little bigger for the upper UHF white 
 space.

 Ch 52 is 698 MHz.  Ch 69 is 800 MHz.  Some of the talk I've seen
 about enormous antennas in the "white space" is ludicrous.

 G

Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!

[ccrum]

Mike, you are certainly correct about the propagation characteristics. 
This is both good and bad depending on how people plan to deploy. I 
think that a lot of people are thinking that this space will let you 
have a self installed, desktop unit because of the NLOS and indoor 
penetration. My point is that units like these would have trouble on the 
uplink because they would have low power and possibly negative gain. A 
yagi, while a good technical solution is visibly unattractive and I know 
that many of my customers would not allow me to install one. A panel 
with similar gain characteristics to a yagi will be large (compared to 
what people are used to) at these frequencies, again a barrier to 
overcome to convince some customers. I'm not arguing either...30m is way 
out there, but 24x24 panel is not, and would probably still be pretty 
low gain, depending on if it is a patch, array of dipoles, or whatever. 
That size antenna on the roof will be a turn off to a lot of customers. 
Also, on the towers, to get decent gain (assuming that the power 
limitations will be very low) on a linearly polarized, broad beam 
antenna, the antenna will be larger than anything people have seen to 
date. Yagi's and lp's won't work here. Again a lot will depend on how 
the networks are designed and deployed, but my feeling is that because 
of the (assumed) power constraints that will most likely be placed on 
the band, and the size limitations that will be a necessity on the 
towers, a given network may well end up with more towers, not fewer as 
one would assume because of the better propagation characteristics. 
Lower frequency is not the end all panacea that many are hoping for.

Regards,

Cameron

Mike wrote:
> Well the comments I've heard ARE ludicrous.  Antennas as big as a TV 
> antenna, 30 meter antennas, and others.
>
> Free space path loss is greater at 5.8 GHz than at 2.4 
> GHz.  Substantially.  Free space path loss at 700 MHz, or 600 or 500 
> is also SUBSTANTIALLY lesser than at 2.4 GHz.
>
> Free space path loss is proportional to the square of the distance 
> between the transmitter and receiver, and also proportional to the 
> square of the FREQUENCY of the radio signal.
>
> The FREQUENCY effect of the free space path loss is directly coupled 
> to the aperture of the antenna, which describes how sensitive an 
> antenna is to an incoming electromagnetic wave for which it is 
> resonant.  Lower frequency equates to a larger aperture, and a larger 
> capture area for similar antennas, as compared to a much higher frequency.
>
> If it is indeed a narrow band, then of course the chances of self 
> interference are there.  The propagation characteristics of UHF for 
> fixed wireless are what cause me to want to "play" in this band 
> instead of some new allocation in the microwave regions.  Think 
> through the trees, over the horizon, near line of site possibilities.
>
> You also can't just reinvent the Yagi-Yuda or log periodic antenna 
> either.  The sizes I stated for those frequencies ARE the full size 
> of an antenna, not some miniaturized or "rabbit ear" antenna.
>
> Actually, I don't even think I'm arguing anything, just trying to 
> dispel a belief that white space antennas are these huge 
> monstrosities; they aren't.
>
> For what it's worth, my personal record for distance on UHF is around 
> 44,000 miles. REALLY!
>
> Mike
>
> At 12:20 PM 10/23/2009,Cameron wrote:
>   
>> It is not "ludacrous". Sure you can receive with a small yagi or panel
>> or heck, even a set of rabbit ears. It's the uplink that will be the
>> major issue. If you are using small cells for coverage you can probably
>> get away with "smaller" antennas on the towers, but this will limit your
>> uplink capability if you are wanting a desktop type CPE or even a small
>> roof mount antenna. Small cell coverage like with uW freqs will have to
>> be carefully planned due to the propagation characteristics and the
>> potential for self interfernece on such a narrow band. It's not
>> impossible, just more complicated.
>>
>> Cameron
>>
>> Mike wrote:
>> 
>>> At 704 MHz, a quarter wave is about 4 inches long.  The driven
>>> element of a Yagi would be about 8 inches long.  They would be way
>>> shorter than 30 meters, or what do you mean?  Think about the 900 MHz
>>> antennas you see but just a little bigger for the upper UHF white space.
>>>
>>> Ch 52 is 698 MHz.  Ch 69 is 800 MHz.  Some of the talk I've seen
>>> about enormous antennas in the "white space" is ludicrous.
>>>
>>> Give me ANY part of it and the radios to use it and I
>>> will.  Propagation would be superior to anything we're using now.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> At 07:46 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote:
>>>
>>>   
 What equipment are they using? Did they have to do the 30 meter antennas?

 Scottie

 -- Original Message --
 From: "Gino Villarini" 
 Reply-To: WISPA General List 
 Date:  Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12

Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!

[Mike]

Jack:

If your goal is to use VHF frequencies at 54 MHz then YES you will 
need a large radiator!  If your goal is to use UHF frequencies at 
300, or 500 MHz, then NO, you won't need a 'TV sized" antenna.  If 
*MANY* 6 MHz wide allocations are made, then one would be stupid to 
use a "do all" antenna for all frequencies.  Maybe I am missing 
something here.  Perhaps a newly revised rules of physics?

Mike Hammett, I am not just trying to be contrary but am willing to 
learn.  UHF antennas are *MUCH* smaller than VHF antennas.

Mike

At 01:50 PM 10/23/2009, you wrote:
>Mike,
>
>You are correct. I'm deep into a final review of WISPA's Spectrum 
>for Broadband FCC filing right this minute (well, actually all 
>morning) but I plan to respond to Mike's points with more 
>information that he may not have about the TV White Spaces FCC 
>rules. I think once he has that additional information, he will 
>understand why your (and my) conclusion about needing a "TV-sized" 
>antenna is correct.
>
>jack
>
>
>Mike Hammett wrote:
>>
>>The 30 meter antenna was misconstrued from the antenna height requirements.
>>It's required to be 10 meters or above for CPE use and no higher than 30
>>meters for AP use.
>>
>>Why would a TV antenna or a TVWS antenna on the same frequency be any
>>different in size?  Maybe some missing elements if your antenna only covers
>>part of the band, but a full band antenna should be roughly the same size as
>>current TV antenna.  We have the use of 54 - 698 MHz (with the current rule
>>set, minus a few reserved channels).
>>
>>Unless I'm missing something, which I doubt because Jack and I discussed
>>this at FISPA.
>>
>>
>>-
>>Mike Hammett
>>Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>From: "Mike" 
>>Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:10 PM
>>To: "WISPA General List" 
>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Well the comments I've heard ARE ludicrous.  Antennas as big as a TV
>>>antenna, 30 meter antennas, and others.
>>>
>>>Free space path loss is greater at 5.8 GHz than at 2.4
>>>GHz.  Substantially.  Free space path loss at 700 MHz, or 600 or 500
>>>is also SUBSTANTIALLY lesser than at 2.4 GHz.
>>>
>>>Free space path loss is proportional to the square of the distance
>>>between the transmitter and receiver, and also proportional to the
>>>square of the FREQUENCY of the radio signal.
>>>
>>>The FREQUENCY effect of the free space path loss is directly coupled
>>>to the aperture of the antenna, which describes how sensitive an
>>>antenna is to an incoming electromagnetic wave for which it is
>>>resonant.  Lower frequency equates to a larger aperture, and a larger
>>>capture area for similar antennas, as compared to a much higher frequency.
>>>
>>>If it is indeed a narrow band, then of course the chances of self
>>>interference are there.  The propagation characteristics of UHF for
>>>fixed wireless are what cause me to want to "play" in this band
>>>instead of some new allocation in the microwave regions.  Think
>>>through the trees, over the horizon, near line of site possibilities.
>>>
>>>You also can't just reinvent the Yagi-Yuda or log periodic antenna
>>>either.  The sizes I stated for those frequencies ARE the full size
>>>of an antenna, not some miniaturized or "rabbit ear" antenna.
>>>
>>>Actually, I don't even think I'm arguing anything, just trying to
>>>dispel a belief that white space antennas are these huge
>>>monstrosities; they aren't.
>>>
>>>For what it's worth, my personal record for distance on UHF is around
>>>44,000 miles. REALLY!
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>
>>>At 12:20 PM 10/23/2009,Cameron wrote:
>>>

It is not "ludacrous". Sure you can receive with a small yagi or panel
or heck, even a set of rabbit ears. It's the uplink that will be the
major issue. If you are using small cells for coverage you can probably
get away with "smaller" antennas on the towers, but this will limit your
uplink capability if you are wanting a desktop type CPE or even a small
roof mount antenna. Small cell coverage like with uW freqs will have to
be carefully planned due to the propagation characteristics and the
potential for self interfernece on such a narrow band. It's not
impossible, just more complicated.

Cameron

Mike wrote:

>
>At 704 MHz, a quarter wave is about 4 inches long.  The driven
>element of a Yagi would be about 8 inches long.  They would be way
>shorter than 30 meters, or what do you mean?  Think about the 900 MHz
>antennas you see but just a little bigger for the upper UHF white
>space.
>
>Ch 52 is 698 MHz.  Ch 69 is 800 MHz.  Some of the talk I've seen
>about enormous antennas in the "white space" is ludicrous.
>
>Give me ANY part of it and the radios to use it and I
>will.  Propagation would be superior to anything we're using no

Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!

[Jack Unger]

Mike, 

You are correct. I'm deep into a final review of WISPA's Spectrum for
Broadband FCC filing right this minute (well, actually all morning) but
I plan to respond to Mike's points with more information that he may
not have about the TV White Spaces FCC rules. I think once he has that
additional information, he will understand why your (and my) conclusion
about needing a "TV-sized" antenna is correct. 

jack


Mike Hammett wrote:

  The 30 meter antenna was misconstrued from the antenna height requirements. 
It's required to be 10 meters or above for CPE use and no higher than 30 
meters for AP use.

Why would a TV antenna or a TVWS antenna on the same frequency be any 
different in size?  Maybe some missing elements if your antenna only covers 
part of the band, but a full band antenna should be roughly the same size as 
current TV antenna.  We have the use of 54 - 698 MHz (with the current rule 
set, minus a few reserved channels).

Unless I'm missing something, which I doubt because Jack and I discussed 
this at FISPA.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: "Mike" 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:10 PM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!

  
  
Well the comments I've heard ARE ludicrous.  Antennas as big as a TV
antenna, 30 meter antennas, and others.

Free space path loss is greater at 5.8 GHz than at 2.4
GHz.  Substantially.  Free space path loss at 700 MHz, or 600 or 500
is also SUBSTANTIALLY lesser than at 2.4 GHz.

Free space path loss is proportional to the square of the distance
between the transmitter and receiver, and also proportional to the
square of the FREQUENCY of the radio signal.

The FREQUENCY effect of the free space path loss is directly coupled
to the aperture of the antenna, which describes how sensitive an
antenna is to an incoming electromagnetic wave for which it is
resonant.  Lower frequency equates to a larger aperture, and a larger
capture area for similar antennas, as compared to a much higher frequency.

If it is indeed a narrow band, then of course the chances of self
interference are there.  The propagation characteristics of UHF for
fixed wireless are what cause me to want to "play" in this band
instead of some new allocation in the microwave regions.  Think
through the trees, over the horizon, near line of site possibilities.

You also can't just reinvent the Yagi-Yuda or log periodic antenna
either.  The sizes I stated for those frequencies ARE the full size
of an antenna, not some miniaturized or "rabbit ear" antenna.

Actually, I don't even think I'm arguing anything, just trying to
dispel a belief that white space antennas are these huge
monstrosities; they aren't.

For what it's worth, my personal record for distance on UHF is around
44,000 miles. REALLY!

Mike

At 12:20 PM 10/23/2009,Cameron wrote:


  It is not "ludacrous". Sure you can receive with a small yagi or panel
or heck, even a set of rabbit ears. It's the uplink that will be the
major issue. If you are using small cells for coverage you can probably
get away with "smaller" antennas on the towers, but this will limit your
uplink capability if you are wanting a desktop type CPE or even a small
roof mount antenna. Small cell coverage like with uW freqs will have to
be carefully planned due to the propagation characteristics and the
potential for self interfernece on such a narrow band. It's not
impossible, just more complicated.

Cameron

Mike wrote:
  
  
At 704 MHz, a quarter wave is about 4 inches long.  The driven
element of a Yagi would be about 8 inches long.  They would be way
shorter than 30 meters, or what do you mean?  Think about the 900 MHz
antennas you see but just a little bigger for the upper UHF white 
space.

Ch 52 is 698 MHz.  Ch 69 is 800 MHz.  Some of the talk I've seen
about enormous antennas in the "white space" is ludicrous.

Give me ANY part of it and the radios to use it and I
will.  Propagation would be superior to anything we're using now.

Mike


At 07:46 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote:



  What equipment are they using? Did they have to do the 30 meter 
antennas?

Scottie

-- Original Message --
From: "Gino Villarini" 
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Date:  Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:05:22 -0400


  
  
IIRC, 6 mhz channels were proponed on the FCC RO, you could bond 
them...
so with current OFDM technologies you can get 10 - 12 Mbps on a 6 mhz
channel.

Not bad for a NLOS, self install and mobile probability

Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
787.273.4143
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
On
Behalf Of Scott Carullo
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:58 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!


My question is how fast can their inte

Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!

[Mike Hammett]

The 30 meter antenna was misconstrued from the antenna height requirements. 
It's required to be 10 meters or above for CPE use and no higher than 30 
meters for AP use.

Why would a TV antenna or a TVWS antenna on the same frequency be any 
different in size?  Maybe some missing elements if your antenna only covers 
part of the band, but a full band antenna should be roughly the same size as 
current TV antenna.  We have the use of 54 - 698 MHz (with the current rule 
set, minus a few reserved channels).

Unless I'm missing something, which I doubt because Jack and I discussed 
this at FISPA.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: "Mike" 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:10 PM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!

> Well the comments I've heard ARE ludicrous.  Antennas as big as a TV
> antenna, 30 meter antennas, and others.
>
> Free space path loss is greater at 5.8 GHz than at 2.4
> GHz.  Substantially.  Free space path loss at 700 MHz, or 600 or 500
> is also SUBSTANTIALLY lesser than at 2.4 GHz.
>
> Free space path loss is proportional to the square of the distance
> between the transmitter and receiver, and also proportional to the
> square of the FREQUENCY of the radio signal.
>
> The FREQUENCY effect of the free space path loss is directly coupled
> to the aperture of the antenna, which describes how sensitive an
> antenna is to an incoming electromagnetic wave for which it is
> resonant.  Lower frequency equates to a larger aperture, and a larger
> capture area for similar antennas, as compared to a much higher frequency.
>
> If it is indeed a narrow band, then of course the chances of self
> interference are there.  The propagation characteristics of UHF for
> fixed wireless are what cause me to want to "play" in this band
> instead of some new allocation in the microwave regions.  Think
> through the trees, over the horizon, near line of site possibilities.
>
> You also can't just reinvent the Yagi-Yuda or log periodic antenna
> either.  The sizes I stated for those frequencies ARE the full size
> of an antenna, not some miniaturized or "rabbit ear" antenna.
>
> Actually, I don't even think I'm arguing anything, just trying to
> dispel a belief that white space antennas are these huge
> monstrosities; they aren't.
>
> For what it's worth, my personal record for distance on UHF is around
> 44,000 miles. REALLY!
>
> Mike
>
> At 12:20 PM 10/23/2009,Cameron wrote:
>>It is not "ludacrous". Sure you can receive with a small yagi or panel
>>or heck, even a set of rabbit ears. It's the uplink that will be the
>>major issue. If you are using small cells for coverage you can probably
>>get away with "smaller" antennas on the towers, but this will limit your
>>uplink capability if you are wanting a desktop type CPE or even a small
>>roof mount antenna. Small cell coverage like with uW freqs will have to
>>be carefully planned due to the propagation characteristics and the
>>potential for self interfernece on such a narrow band. It's not
>>impossible, just more complicated.
>>
>>Cameron
>>
>>Mike wrote:
>> > At 704 MHz, a quarter wave is about 4 inches long.  The driven
>> > element of a Yagi would be about 8 inches long.  They would be way
>> > shorter than 30 meters, or what do you mean?  Think about the 900 MHz
>> > antennas you see but just a little bigger for the upper UHF white 
>> > space.
>> >
>> > Ch 52 is 698 MHz.  Ch 69 is 800 MHz.  Some of the talk I've seen
>> > about enormous antennas in the "white space" is ludicrous.
>> >
>> > Give me ANY part of it and the radios to use it and I
>> > will.  Propagation would be superior to anything we're using now.
>> >
>> > Mike
>> >
>> >
>> > At 07:46 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote:
>> >
>> >> What equipment are they using? Did they have to do the 30 meter 
>> >> antennas?
>> >>
>> >> Scottie
>> >>
>> >> -- Original Message --
>> >> From: "Gino Villarini" 
>> >> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
>> >> Date:  Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:05:22 -0400
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> IIRC, 6 mhz channels were proponed on the FCC RO, you could bond 
>> >>> them...
>> >>> so with current OFDM technologies you can get 10 - 12 Mbps on a 6 mhz
>> >>> channel.
>> >>>
>> >>> Not bad for a NLOS, self install and mobile probability
>> >>>
>> >>> Gino A. Villarini
>> >>> g...@aeronetpr.com
>> >>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>> >>> 787.273.4143
>> >>> -Original Message-
>> >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
>> >>> On
>> >>> Behalf Of Scott Carullo
>> >>> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:58 AM
>> >>> To: WISPA General List
>> >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> My question is how fast can their internet go using tv whitespace?
>> >>> Sprint
>> >>> used to serve this area with an unutilized tv channel and it was 
>> >>> SLOW.
>> >>> I
>> >>> guess if you had nothing else but i

[WISPA] TAKE THE WISPA TRADE SHOW SURVEY!

[Forbes Mercy]

Greetings WISP's,

The board of WISPA has authorized initial research into holding the
first Trade Show of WISPA.  We don't want to assume too much for the
membership and therefore have put together a survey for members and
non-members alike to fill out for guidance as we prepare for a possible
show this spring.

A subscription list specifically for the Trade Show sub-committee starts
next week. If you'd like to participate in any of the Promotions
Committee work you can join that list now at:  

http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/Promotion

OK here's the Survey Link, we will accept your input from now until
Saturday October 31st. The board truly appreciates your participation
and hopes this Trade Show will help our industry and your success!

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=wsWAhIYE3XfDaKLojwMeNQ_3d_3d

Forbes Mercy
WISPA - Promotions Committee Chair
for...@wispa.org



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] Holy cow!

[Mike]

Well the comments I've heard ARE ludicrous.  Antennas as big as a TV 
antenna, 30 meter antennas, and others.

Free space path loss is greater at 5.8 GHz than at 2.4 
GHz.  Substantially.  Free space path loss at 700 MHz, or 600 or 500 
is also SUBSTANTIALLY lesser than at 2.4 GHz.

Free space path loss is proportional to the square of the distance 
between the transmitter and receiver, and also proportional to the 
square of the FREQUENCY of the radio signal.

The FREQUENCY effect of the free space path loss is directly coupled 
to the aperture of the antenna, which describes how sensitive an 
antenna is to an incoming electromagnetic wave for which it is 
resonant.  Lower frequency equates to a larger aperture, and a larger 
capture area for similar antennas, as compared to a much higher frequency.

If it is indeed a narrow band, then of course the chances of self 
interference are there.  The propagation characteristics of UHF for 
fixed wireless are what cause me to want to "play" in this band 
instead of some new allocation in the microwave regions.  Think 
through the trees, over the horizon, near line of site possibilities.

You also can't just reinvent the Yagi-Yuda or log periodic antenna 
either.  The sizes I stated for those frequencies ARE the full size 
of an antenna, not some miniaturized or "rabbit ear" antenna.

Actually, I don't even think I'm arguing anything, just trying to 
dispel a belief that white space antennas are these huge 
monstrosities; they aren't.

For what it's worth, my personal record for distance on UHF is around 
44,000 miles. REALLY!

Mike

At 12:20 PM 10/23/2009,Cameron wrote:
>It is not "ludacrous". Sure you can receive with a small yagi or panel
>or heck, even a set of rabbit ears. It's the uplink that will be the
>major issue. If you are using small cells for coverage you can probably
>get away with "smaller" antennas on the towers, but this will limit your
>uplink capability if you are wanting a desktop type CPE or even a small
>roof mount antenna. Small cell coverage like with uW freqs will have to
>be carefully planned due to the propagation characteristics and the
>potential for self interfernece on such a narrow band. It's not
>impossible, just more complicated.
>
>Cameron
>
>Mike wrote:
> > At 704 MHz, a quarter wave is about 4 inches long.  The driven
> > element of a Yagi would be about 8 inches long.  They would be way
> > shorter than 30 meters, or what do you mean?  Think about the 900 MHz
> > antennas you see but just a little bigger for the upper UHF white space.
> >
> > Ch 52 is 698 MHz.  Ch 69 is 800 MHz.  Some of the talk I've seen
> > about enormous antennas in the "white space" is ludicrous.
> >
> > Give me ANY part of it and the radios to use it and I
> > will.  Propagation would be superior to anything we're using now.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > At 07:46 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote:
> >
> >> What equipment are they using? Did they have to do the 30 meter antennas?
> >>
> >> Scottie
> >>
> >> -- Original Message --
> >> From: "Gino Villarini" 
> >> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> >> Date:  Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:05:22 -0400
> >>
> >>
> >>> IIRC, 6 mhz channels were proponed on the FCC RO, you could bond them...
> >>> so with current OFDM technologies you can get 10 - 12 Mbps on a 6 mhz
> >>> channel.
> >>>
> >>> Not bad for a NLOS, self install and mobile probability
> >>>
> >>> Gino A. Villarini
> >>> g...@aeronetpr.com
> >>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> >>> 787.273.4143
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> >>> Behalf Of Scott Carullo
> >>> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:58 AM
> >>> To: WISPA General List
> >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> My question is how fast can their internet go using tv whitespace?
> >>> Sprint
> >>> used to serve this area with an unutilized tv channel and it was SLOW.
> >>> I
> >>> guess if you had nothing else but if it can't go one MB its not on my
> >>> radar
> >>> of concern.  Actually in our market if you cant deliver 10-20MB your not
> >>>
> >>> playing the game.
> >>>
> >>> Scott Carullo
> >>> Brevard Wireless
> >>> 321-205-1100 x102
> >>>  Original Message 
> >>>
>  From: "Jack Unger" 
>  Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:49 AM
>  To: "WISPA General List" 
>  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!
> 
>  See the attached Case Study and Press Release.
> 
>  jack
> 
> 
>  Jonathan Schmidt wrote:
> 
> > Dell, Microsoft Launching Broadband Net In Rural Virginia
> > Computer Companies Join TDF Foundation, Spectrum Bridge To Debut
> >
> >>> Network
> >>>
> > Using 'White Spaces'
> >
> > John Eggerton -- Multichannel News, 10/21/2009 3:47:19 PM
> >
> >
> > Computer companies Dell and Microsoft are scheduled to join with TDF
> > Foundation and Spectrum Bridge Wednesday to launch a broadban

Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!

[ccrum]

It is not "ludacrous". Sure you can receive with a small yagi or panel 
or heck, even a set of rabbit ears. It's the uplink that will be the 
major issue. If you are using small cells for coverage you can probably 
get away with "smaller" antennas on the towers, but this will limit your 
uplink capability if you are wanting a desktop type CPE or even a small 
roof mount antenna. Small cell coverage like with uW freqs will have to 
be carefully planned due to the propagation characteristics and the 
potential for self interfernece on such a narrow band. It's not 
impossible, just more complicated.

Cameron

Mike wrote:
> At 704 MHz, a quarter wave is about 4 inches long.  The driven 
> element of a Yagi would be about 8 inches long.  They would be way 
> shorter than 30 meters, or what do you mean?  Think about the 900 MHz 
> antennas you see but just a little bigger for the upper UHF white space.
>
> Ch 52 is 698 MHz.  Ch 69 is 800 MHz.  Some of the talk I've seen 
> about enormous antennas in the "white space" is ludicrous.
>
> Give me ANY part of it and the radios to use it and I 
> will.  Propagation would be superior to anything we're using now.
>
> Mike
>
>
> At 07:46 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote:
>   
>> What equipment are they using? Did they have to do the 30 meter antennas?
>>
>> Scottie
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "Gino Villarini" 
>> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
>> Date:  Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:05:22 -0400
>>
>> 
>>> IIRC, 6 mhz channels were proponed on the FCC RO, you could bond them...
>>> so with current OFDM technologies you can get 10 - 12 Mbps on a 6 mhz
>>> channel.
>>>
>>> Not bad for a NLOS, self install and mobile probability
>>>
>>> Gino A. Villarini
>>> g...@aeronetpr.com
>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>>> 787.273.4143
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Scott Carullo
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:58 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!
>>>
>>>
>>> My question is how fast can their internet go using tv whitespace?
>>> Sprint
>>> used to serve this area with an unutilized tv channel and it was SLOW.
>>> I
>>> guess if you had nothing else but if it can't go one MB its not on my
>>> radar
>>> of concern.  Actually in our market if you cant deliver 10-20MB your not
>>>
>>> playing the game.
>>>
>>> Scott Carullo
>>> Brevard Wireless
>>> 321-205-1100 x102
>>>  Original Message 
>>>   
 From: "Jack Unger" 
 Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:49 AM
 To: "WISPA General List" 
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!

 See the attached Case Study and Press Release.

 jack


 Jonathan Schmidt wrote:
 
> Dell, Microsoft Launching Broadband Net In Rural Virginia
> Computer Companies Join TDF Foundation, Spectrum Bridge To Debut
>   
>>> Network
>>>   
> Using 'White Spaces'
>
> John Eggerton -- Multichannel News, 10/21/2009 3:47:19 PM
>
>
> Computer companies Dell and Microsoft are scheduled to join with TDF
> Foundation and Spectrum Bridge Wednesday to launch a broadband
>   
>>> network
>>> in
>>>   
> rural Virginia, using the so-called white spaces between TV
>   
>>> channels.
>>>   
> House Communications Subcommitee Chairman Rick Boucher, who
>   
>>> represents
>>>   
> rural Virginia, is scheduled to be on hand as the companies host a
>   
>>> Webcast
>>>   
> with residents of an Appalachian community talking about how
>   
>>> wireless
>>>   
> Interent connectivity can change their lives.
>
> The government is currently working on a national broadband plan,
> including freeing up even more spectrum space for wireless Internet.
>
> Spectrum Bridge, a sort of Ebay for identifying available spectrum
>   
>>> in
>>>   
> secondary markets, launched a Web site in February to help identify
> available open TV channels. The site can be used by wireless
>   
>>> Internet
>>>   
> providers to figure out whether there is enough spectrum in a
>   
>>> potential
>>>   
> service area to make it economically viable.
>
>
>
>   
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   
> 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 - President, Ask-Wi.C

Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!

[Scottie Arnett]

I need to proof read my posts a little better, lol. That would be one HUGE 
antenna.

Scottie

-- Original Message --
From: John Valenti 
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Date:  Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:35:56 -0400

>RE the 30 meter antennas 
>possibly he is referring to the height limits on antennas (and not the  
>size)?   The R&O document said client antennas had to be 10m AGL, and  
>AP antennas had to be less than 30m.
>http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-260A1.pdf   
>(page 65)
>-John
>
>
>On Oct 22, 2009, at 8:52 PM, Mike wrote:
>
>> At 704 MHz, a quarter wave is about 4 inches long.  The driven
>> element of a Yagi would be about 8 inches long.  They would be way
>> shorter than 30 meters, or what do you mean?  Think about the 900 MHz
>> antennas you see but just a little bigger for the upper UHF white  
>> space.
>>
>> Ch 52 is 698 MHz.  Ch 69 is 800 MHz.  Some of the talk I've seen
>> about enormous antennas in the "white space" is ludicrous.
>>
>> Give me ANY part of it and the radios to use it and I
>> will.  Propagation would be superior to anything we're using now.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> At 07:46 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote:
>>> What equipment are they using? Did they have to do the 30 meter  
>>> antennas?
>>>
>>> Scottie
>>>
>>> -- Original Message --
>>> From: "Gino Villarini" 
>>> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
>>> Date:  Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:05:22 -0400
>>>
 IIRC, 6 mhz channels were proponed on the FCC RO, you could bond  
 them...
 so with current OFDM technologies you can get 10 - 12 Mbps on a 6  
 mhz
 channel.

 Not bad for a NLOS, self install and mobile probability

 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 787.273.4143
 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- 
 boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Scott Carullo
 Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:58 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!


 My question is how fast can their internet go using tv whitespace?
 Sprint
 used to serve this area with an unutilized tv channel and it was  
 SLOW.
 I
 guess if you had nothing else but if it can't go one MB its not on  
 my
 radar
 of concern.  Actually in our market if you cant deliver 10-20MB  
 your not

 playing the game.

 Scott Carullo
 Brevard Wireless
 321-205-1100 x102
  Original Message 
> From: "Jack Unger" 
> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:49 AM
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!
>
> See the attached Case Study and Press Release.
>
> jack
>
>
> Jonathan Schmidt wrote:
>> Dell, Microsoft Launching Broadband Net In Rural Virginia
>> Computer Companies Join TDF Foundation, Spectrum Bridge To Debut
 Network
>> Using 'White Spaces'
>>
>> John Eggerton -- Multichannel News, 10/21/2009 3:47:19 PM
>>
>>
>> Computer companies Dell and Microsoft are scheduled to join with  
>> TDF
>> Foundation and Spectrum Bridge Wednesday to launch a broadband
 network
 in
>> rural Virginia, using the so-called white spaces between TV
 channels.
>>
>> House Communications Subcommitee Chairman Rick Boucher, who
 represents
>> rural Virginia, is scheduled to be on hand as the companies host a
 Webcast
>> with residents of an Appalachian community talking about how
 wireless
>> Interent connectivity can change their lives.
>>
>> The government is currently working on a national broadband plan,
>> including freeing up even more spectrum space for wireless  
>> Internet.
>>
>> Spectrum Bridge, a sort of Ebay for identifying available spectrum
 in
>> secondary markets, launched a Web site in February to help  
>> identify
>> available open TV channels. The site can be used by wireless
 Internet
>> providers to figure out whether there is enough spectrum in a
 potential
>> service area to make it economically viable.
>>
>>
>>
 
 
 
>> 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 - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
> Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
> www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.

Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!

[Scottie Arnett]

Yes John, thanks. That was what I was referring to. I could not remember the 
exact height for each, but I could recall one was around 30 meters.

Scottie

-- Original Message --
From: John Valenti 
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Date:  Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:35:56 -0400

>RE the 30 meter antennas 
>possibly he is referring to the height limits on antennas (and not the  
>size)?   The R&O document said client antennas had to be 10m AGL, and  
>AP antennas had to be less than 30m.
>http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-260A1.pdf   
>(page 65)
>-John
>
>
>On Oct 22, 2009, at 8:52 PM, Mike wrote:
>
>> At 704 MHz, a quarter wave is about 4 inches long.  The driven
>> element of a Yagi would be about 8 inches long.  They would be way
>> shorter than 30 meters, or what do you mean?  Think about the 900 MHz
>> antennas you see but just a little bigger for the upper UHF white  
>> space.
>>
>> Ch 52 is 698 MHz.  Ch 69 is 800 MHz.  Some of the talk I've seen
>> about enormous antennas in the "white space" is ludicrous.
>>
>> Give me ANY part of it and the radios to use it and I
>> will.  Propagation would be superior to anything we're using now.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> At 07:46 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote:
>>> What equipment are they using? Did they have to do the 30 meter  
>>> antennas?
>>>
>>> Scottie
>>>
>>> -- Original Message --
>>> From: "Gino Villarini" 
>>> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
>>> Date:  Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:05:22 -0400
>>>
 IIRC, 6 mhz channels were proponed on the FCC RO, you could bond  
 them...
 so with current OFDM technologies you can get 10 - 12 Mbps on a 6  
 mhz
 channel.

 Not bad for a NLOS, self install and mobile probability

 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 787.273.4143
 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- 
 boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Scott Carullo
 Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:58 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!


 My question is how fast can their internet go using tv whitespace?
 Sprint
 used to serve this area with an unutilized tv channel and it was  
 SLOW.
 I
 guess if you had nothing else but if it can't go one MB its not on  
 my
 radar
 of concern.  Actually in our market if you cant deliver 10-20MB  
 your not

 playing the game.

 Scott Carullo
 Brevard Wireless
 321-205-1100 x102
  Original Message 
> From: "Jack Unger" 
> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:49 AM
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!
>
> See the attached Case Study and Press Release.
>
> jack
>
>
> Jonathan Schmidt wrote:
>> Dell, Microsoft Launching Broadband Net In Rural Virginia
>> Computer Companies Join TDF Foundation, Spectrum Bridge To Debut
 Network
>> Using 'White Spaces'
>>
>> John Eggerton -- Multichannel News, 10/21/2009 3:47:19 PM
>>
>>
>> Computer companies Dell and Microsoft are scheduled to join with  
>> TDF
>> Foundation and Spectrum Bridge Wednesday to launch a broadband
 network
 in
>> rural Virginia, using the so-called white spaces between TV
 channels.
>>
>> House Communications Subcommitee Chairman Rick Boucher, who
 represents
>> rural Virginia, is scheduled to be on hand as the companies host a
 Webcast
>> with residents of an Appalachian community talking about how
 wireless
>> Interent connectivity can change their lives.
>>
>> The government is currently working on a national broadband plan,
>> including freeing up even more spectrum space for wireless  
>> Internet.
>>
>> Spectrum Bridge, a sort of Ebay for identifying available spectrum
 in
>> secondary markets, launched a Web site in February to help  
>> identify
>> available open TV channels. The site can be used by wireless
 Internet
>> providers to figure out whether there is enough spectrum in a
 potential
>> service area to make it economically viable.
>>
>>
>>
 
 
 
>> 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 - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
> Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry 

[WISPA] Refinery fire in San Juan metro area

[Gino Villarini]

Not a typical day in our neck of woods

At 12:20 am a major explosion and fire  generated in a local oil  
refinery and storage area on San Juan

http://us.mobile.reuters.com/mobile/m/AnyArticle/p.rdt?URL=http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN2391512

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D5G84-CQTQl8&v=5G84-CQTQl8

Got links working though the flames!

Sent from my Motorola Startac...




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] Need to beg borrow steal a Fluke Network Tester

[Jerry Richardson]

Google "fluke network tester rental"

Also check with your local low volatage cable distributor and or LV contractor, 
they may have one to rent.


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Scott Carullo
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 7:39 AM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] Need to beg borrow steal a Fluke Network Tester

Anyone know where I can get a Fluke network tester to give reports on 
customer premise wiring job?

I feel a one weeks rental fits my requirements the most.  Thanks.

Scott Carullo
Brevard Wireless
321-205-1100 x102




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] Holy cow!

[John Valenti]

RE the 30 meter antennas 
possibly he is referring to the height limits on antennas (and not the  
size)?   The R&O document said client antennas had to be 10m AGL, and  
AP antennas had to be less than 30m.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-260A1.pdf   
(page 65)
-John


On Oct 22, 2009, at 8:52 PM, Mike wrote:

> At 704 MHz, a quarter wave is about 4 inches long.  The driven
> element of a Yagi would be about 8 inches long.  They would be way
> shorter than 30 meters, or what do you mean?  Think about the 900 MHz
> antennas you see but just a little bigger for the upper UHF white  
> space.
>
> Ch 52 is 698 MHz.  Ch 69 is 800 MHz.  Some of the talk I've seen
> about enormous antennas in the "white space" is ludicrous.
>
> Give me ANY part of it and the radios to use it and I
> will.  Propagation would be superior to anything we're using now.
>
> Mike
>
>
> At 07:46 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote:
>> What equipment are they using? Did they have to do the 30 meter  
>> antennas?
>>
>> Scottie
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "Gino Villarini" 
>> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
>> Date:  Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:05:22 -0400
>>
>>> IIRC, 6 mhz channels were proponed on the FCC RO, you could bond  
>>> them...
>>> so with current OFDM technologies you can get 10 - 12 Mbps on a 6  
>>> mhz
>>> channel.
>>>
>>> Not bad for a NLOS, self install and mobile probability
>>>
>>> Gino A. Villarini
>>> g...@aeronetpr.com
>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>>> 787.273.4143
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- 
>>> boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Scott Carullo
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:58 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!
>>>
>>>
>>> My question is how fast can their internet go using tv whitespace?
>>> Sprint
>>> used to serve this area with an unutilized tv channel and it was  
>>> SLOW.
>>> I
>>> guess if you had nothing else but if it can't go one MB its not on  
>>> my
>>> radar
>>> of concern.  Actually in our market if you cant deliver 10-20MB  
>>> your not
>>>
>>> playing the game.
>>>
>>> Scott Carullo
>>> Brevard Wireless
>>> 321-205-1100 x102
>>>  Original Message 
 From: "Jack Unger" 
 Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:49 AM
 To: "WISPA General List" 
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!

 See the attached Case Study and Press Release.

 jack


 Jonathan Schmidt wrote:
> Dell, Microsoft Launching Broadband Net In Rural Virginia
> Computer Companies Join TDF Foundation, Spectrum Bridge To Debut
>>> Network
> Using 'White Spaces'
>
> John Eggerton -- Multichannel News, 10/21/2009 3:47:19 PM
>
>
> Computer companies Dell and Microsoft are scheduled to join with  
> TDF
> Foundation and Spectrum Bridge Wednesday to launch a broadband
>>> network
>>> in
> rural Virginia, using the so-called white spaces between TV
>>> channels.
>
> House Communications Subcommitee Chairman Rick Boucher, who
>>> represents
> rural Virginia, is scheduled to be on hand as the companies host a
>>> Webcast
> with residents of an Appalachian community talking about how
>>> wireless
> Interent connectivity can change their lives.
>
> The government is currently working on a national broadband plan,
> including freeing up even more spectrum space for wireless  
> Internet.
>
> Spectrum Bridge, a sort of Ebay for identifying available spectrum
>>> in
> secondary markets, launched a Web site in February to help  
> identify
> available open TV channels. The site can be used by wireless
>>> Internet
> providers to figure out whether there is enough spectrum in a
>>> potential
> service area to make it economically viable.
>
>
>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 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 - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
 Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
 www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com

 Sent from my Pizzicato PluckString...







>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/

>>> 
>>> 
>>> 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>

Re: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements

[Jerry Richardson]

And then you think about it for a minite and realize.

NAH.Don't miss it :-)

Jerry

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Larry Yunker
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 6:42 AM
To: 'Marlon K. Schafer'; leyun...@wispadvantage.com; 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements

Marlon,

Thanks for the kind words.  I sometimes (incorrectly) assume that list
members know/knew that I used to run an ISP/WISP.   Believe me... there are
days now when I'm cooped up in the office that I miss being out there
climbing towers, hanging antennas, installing routers and looking for the
next grain-leg to expand to.   

Regards,
Larry

-Original Message-
From: Marlon K. Schafer [mailto:o...@odessaoffice.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 12:00 AM
To: leyun...@wispadvantage.com; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements

For those that don't know him, Larry is an ex wisp all around good guy.

He's now a lawyer but I try hard not to hold that against him.

Did I say that I've known him for years and he's a great guy?  Litterally 
one of the founders of the WISP business.

marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "Larry Yunker" 
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements


> Robert,
>
> A good partnership agreement / shareholder agreement is a necessity if you
> are going to take on a partner and make your business venture a success.
> There are a lot of considerations:
>
> How to split profits
> How to split losses
> How to elect a board of directors
> How to make management decisions (usually voting control of the board)
> How to handle stalemates
> If the company is in need of money what sort of future contributions will 
> be
> required and how will those future contributions effect equity
> Is each partner/shareholder responsible for existing debts/liabilities of
> the company?
> Is each partner/shareholder entitled to any sort of salary? (what if the
> partner gets sick, cannot work, or will not work?)
> Under what circumstances may a partner/shareholder draw money out of the
> company?
> Is a partner entitled to work for the company or can a partner be "fired" 
> as
> an employee - if so, does that partner retain his equity in the company?
> What happens when you want to add new partners?
> What happens when a partner wants to cash-out?
> Can a partner sell his interest to just anyone or must 100% of the 
> partners
> agree to the sale or must the sale be ONLY to existing partners?
> What happens when a partner dies, gets a divorce, or files bankruptcy?
> How does the company get valued if a buyout is required?
> Do you mediate or arbitrate disputes or do you immediately go to court to
> resolve legal issues?
> What about competition - can a partner compete? Can an ex-partner compete?
> Define competition - can a (ex)partner hire away your employees?  Can a 
> (ex)
> partner solicit your customers?  For how long after a breakup must an
> (ex)partner remain out of the field?  Is a (ex)partner limited only from
> providing wireless access services or is he limited from web hosting, web
> design, computer repair, etc.
>
> The list goes on and on.  I've handled several partnership/shareholder
> agreements and with the use of a good template and a good understanding of
> the WISP business, it's possible to put together a plan to protect 
> yourself
> and your potential business partners from future disagreements.  Trust 
> only
> goes so far eventually something unforeseen will happen and when it 
> does
> you want to make sure that you have a document to cover your basis.
>
> Regards,
> Larry Yunker II, Esq.
> Barkan & Robon, Ltd.
> (419) 897-6500
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Robert West
> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:17 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements
>
> I've had as few people approach me in the recent past wanting to partner 
> up
> with me and to be honest, I can really use someone to carry half the load.
> I'm leery, however of getting screwed.  (My father was in business for 
> years
> with one partner and after they took on another they all got screwed to 
> the
> point they were out of business)  A requirement of a partner, for me, 
> would
> be someone buying in with enough cash to grow the company to carry the 
> extra
> weight of the new guy.  The ones in the past turned out to be flakes with
> only dollar signs in their eyes.  Not a good fit for me, I'm not about 
> cash
> in my pocket, that comes with doing a good job and someone talking about
> money all the time scares the hell out of me.
>
>
>
> I now have a guy who looks good.  Has the assets and interest.  Has 3 
> small
> towers in parts in his barn, he has a barn converted to an office,
> construction equipment, traile

Re: [WISPA] Need to beg borrow steal a Fluke Network Tester

[Marlon K. Schafer]

Oooo, that looks cool.  I'm gonna add that to my wish list!

marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "3-dB Networks" 
To: ; "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Need to beg borrow steal a Fluke Network Tester


> You might want to check these out.  We bought one to play with and have 
> been
> reasonably impressed with it... especially for $500
>
> http://www.bytebros.com/bb_tester/Real%20World%20Certifier.htm
>
> 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: Friday, October 23, 2009 8:39 AM
>>To: wireless@wispa.org
>>Subject: [WISPA] Need to beg borrow steal a Fluke Network Tester
>>
>>Anyone know where I can get a Fluke network tester to give reports on
>>customer premise wiring job?
>>
>>I feel a one weeks rental fits my requirements the most.  Thanks.
>>
>>Scott Carullo
>>Brevard Wireless
>>321-205-1100 x102
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>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/ 




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] Holy cow!

[Mike Hammett]

The rules are still up in the air, but the last set I heard had us using the 
entire TV band, save a few reserved channels.  The "700 MHz band" was the 
highest set of channels (parts of 698 - 806) that the FCC auctioned off 
before anything happened with TVWS.

http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/data/bandplans/700MHzBandPlan.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_spaces_(radio)


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: "Mike" 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 4:04 AM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!

> U, only partially.  The old TV antennas were combo antennas that
> usually had a log periodic antenna for VHF and some sort of
> arrangement for UHF, usually a corner reflector, bow tie or
> something.  Because they were designed to be so wide band, they were
> huge.  Any 700 MHz antenna will be MUCH smaller.
>
> TV channel 2 is 54 MHz, where a half wave dipole (or log periodic
> element) is 8.6 feet long.  That would be the longest element on a TV
> antenna and the reason they were so big.
>
> The white space is also called the 700 MHz band.  A 700 MHz dipole is
> 8 inches long, and a 800 MHz dipole is 7 inches long.  A 6 element
> log periodic for this range would be a little over a foot long.
>
> Think along the lines of a 900 MHz antenna NOT a VHF TV antenna.
>
> Mike
>
> At 12:20 AM 10/23/2009, you wrote:
>>A VERY good guide to the whitespaces antenna sizes... are the millions of 
>>TV
>>antennas we've been using for 50+ years.
>>
>>
>>-
>>Mike Hammett
>>Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>From: "Mike" 
>>Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 7:52 PM
>>To: ; "WISPA General List" 
>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!
>>
>> > At 704 MHz, a quarter wave is about 4 inches long.  The driven
>> > element of a Yagi would be about 8 inches long.  They would be way
>> > shorter than 30 meters, or what do you mean?  Think about the 900 MHz
>> > antennas you see but just a little bigger for the upper UHF white 
>> > space.
>> >
>> > Ch 52 is 698 MHz.  Ch 69 is 800 MHz.  Some of the talk I've seen
>> > about enormous antennas in the "white space" is ludicrous.
>> >
>> > Give me ANY part of it and the radios to use it and I
>> > will.  Propagation would be superior to anything we're using now.
>> >
>> > Mike
>> >
>> >
>> > At 07:46 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote:
>> >>What equipment are they using? Did they have to do the 30 meter 
>> >>antennas?
>> >>
>> >>Scottie
>> >>
>> >>-- Original Message --
>> >>From: "Gino Villarini" 
>> >>Reply-To: WISPA General List 
>> >>Date:  Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:05:22 -0400
>> >>
>> >> >IIRC, 6 mhz channels were proponed on the FCC RO, you could bond 
>> >> >them...
>> >> >so with current OFDM technologies you can get 10 - 12 Mbps on a 6 mhz
>> >> >channel.
>> >> >
>> >> >Not bad for a NLOS, self install and mobile probability
>> >> >
>> >> >Gino A. Villarini
>> >> >g...@aeronetpr.com
>> >> >Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>> >> >787.273.4143
>> >> >-Original Message-
>> >> >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
>> >> >On
>> >> >Behalf Of Scott Carullo
>> >> >Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:58 AM
>> >> >To: WISPA General List
>> >> >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >My question is how fast can their internet go using tv whitespace?
>> >> >Sprint
>> >> >used to serve this area with an unutilized tv channel and it was 
>> >> >SLOW.
>> >> >I
>> >> >guess if you had nothing else but if it can't go one MB its not on my
>> >> >radar
>> >> >of concern.  Actually in our market if you cant deliver 10-20MB your 
>> >> >not
>> >> >
>> >> >playing the game.
>> >> >
>> >> >Scott Carullo
>> >> >Brevard Wireless
>> >> >321-205-1100 x102
>> >> > Original Message 
>> >> >> From: "Jack Unger" 
>> >> >> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:49 AM
>> >> >> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> >> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> See the attached Case Study and Press Release.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> jack
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jonathan Schmidt wrote:
>> >> >> > Dell, Microsoft Launching Broadband Net In Rural Virginia
>> >> >> > Computer Companies Join TDF Foundation, Spectrum Bridge To Debut
>> >> >Network
>> >> >> > Using 'White Spaces'
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > John Eggerton -- Multichannel News, 10/21/2009 3:47:19 PM
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Computer companies Dell and Microsoft are scheduled to join with 
>> >> >> > TDF
>> >> >> > Foundation and Spectrum Bridge Wednesday to launch a broadband
>> >> >network
>> >> >in
>> >> >> > rural Virginia, using the so-called white spaces between TV
>> >> >channels.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > House Communications Subcommitee Chairman Rick Boucher, who
>> >> >represents
>> >> >> > rural Virginia, is scheduled to be on hand as the companies host 
>> >> >

Re: [WISPA] Need to beg borrow steal a Fluke Network Tester

[Marlon K. Schafer]

I rented a really powerful Fluke from these guys.

http://www.trs-rentelco.com/SubCategory/LAN_Cable_Testers_CAT_5_CAT_6_.aspx

I ended up having to call them for help in setting the unit up so that I got 
accurate readings and they were great to work with!
marlon


- Original Message - 
From: "Scott Carullo" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 7:38 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Need to beg borrow steal a Fluke Network Tester


> Anyone know where I can get a Fluke network tester to give reports on
> customer premise wiring job?
>
> I feel a one weeks rental fits my requirements the most.  Thanks.
>
> Scott Carullo
> Brevard Wireless
> 321-205-1100 x102
>
>
>
> 
> 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] Need to beg borrow steal a Fluke Network Tester

[3-dB Networks]

You might want to check these out.  We bought one to play with and have been
reasonably impressed with it... especially for $500

http://www.bytebros.com/bb_tester/Real%20World%20Certifier.htm

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: Friday, October 23, 2009 8:39 AM
>To: wireless@wispa.org
>Subject: [WISPA] Need to beg borrow steal a Fluke Network Tester
>
>Anyone know where I can get a Fluke network tester to give reports on
>customer premise wiring job?
>
>I feel a one weeks rental fits my requirements the most.  Thanks.
>
>Scott Carullo
>Brevard Wireless
>321-205-1100 x102
>
>
>
>
>
>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] Partnership Agreements

[Marlon K. Schafer]

Grin.

You know, many of us still work side jobs!  big grin

For me, it's the local chamber of commerce (president) and being on the 
board of WISPA.

YOU could be a WISP

Woo hoo
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "Larry Yunker" 
To: "'Marlon K. Schafer'" ; 
; "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 6:42 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements


> Marlon,
>
> Thanks for the kind words.  I sometimes (incorrectly) assume that list
> members know/knew that I used to run an ISP/WISP.   Believe me... there 
> are
> days now when I'm cooped up in the office that I miss being out there
> climbing towers, hanging antennas, installing routers and looking for the
> next grain-leg to expand to.
>
> Regards,
> Larry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Marlon K. Schafer [mailto:o...@odessaoffice.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 12:00 AM
> To: leyun...@wispadvantage.com; WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements
>
> For those that don't know him, Larry is an ex wisp all around good guy.
>
> He's now a lawyer but I try hard not to hold that against him.
>
> Did I say that I've known him for years and he's a great guy?  Litterally
> one of the founders of the WISP business.
>
> marlon
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Larry Yunker" 
> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements
>
>
>> Robert,
>>
>> A good partnership agreement / shareholder agreement is a necessity if 
>> you
>> are going to take on a partner and make your business venture a success.
>> There are a lot of considerations:
>>
>> How to split profits
>> How to split losses
>> How to elect a board of directors
>> How to make management decisions (usually voting control of the board)
>> How to handle stalemates
>> If the company is in need of money what sort of future contributions will
>> be
>> required and how will those future contributions effect equity
>> Is each partner/shareholder responsible for existing debts/liabilities of
>> the company?
>> Is each partner/shareholder entitled to any sort of salary? (what if the
>> partner gets sick, cannot work, or will not work?)
>> Under what circumstances may a partner/shareholder draw money out of the
>> company?
>> Is a partner entitled to work for the company or can a partner be "fired"
>> as
>> an employee - if so, does that partner retain his equity in the company?
>> What happens when you want to add new partners?
>> What happens when a partner wants to cash-out?
>> Can a partner sell his interest to just anyone or must 100% of the
>> partners
>> agree to the sale or must the sale be ONLY to existing partners?
>> What happens when a partner dies, gets a divorce, or files bankruptcy?
>> How does the company get valued if a buyout is required?
>> Do you mediate or arbitrate disputes or do you immediately go to court to
>> resolve legal issues?
>> What about competition - can a partner compete? Can an ex-partner 
>> compete?
>> Define competition - can a (ex)partner hire away your employees?  Can a
>> (ex)
>> partner solicit your customers?  For how long after a breakup must an
>> (ex)partner remain out of the field?  Is a (ex)partner limited only from
>> providing wireless access services or is he limited from web hosting, web
>> design, computer repair, etc.
>>
>> The list goes on and on.  I've handled several partnership/shareholder
>> agreements and with the use of a good template and a good understanding 
>> of
>> the WISP business, it's possible to put together a plan to protect
>> yourself
>> and your potential business partners from future disagreements.  Trust
>> only
>> goes so far eventually something unforeseen will happen and when it
>> does
>> you want to make sure that you have a document to cover your basis.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Larry Yunker II, Esq.
>> Barkan & Robon, Ltd.
>> (419) 897-6500
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Robert West
>> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:17 AM
>> To: 'WISPA General List'
>> Subject: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements
>>
>> I've had as few people approach me in the recent past wanting to partner
>> up
>> with me and to be honest, I can really use someone to carry half the 
>> load.
>> I'm leery, however of getting screwed.  (My father was in business for
>> years
>> with one partner and after they took on another they all got screwed to
>> the
>> point they were out of business)  A requirement of a partner, for me,
>> would
>> be someone buying in with enough cash to grow the company to carry the
>> extra
>> weight of the new guy.  The ones in the past turned out to be flakes with
>> only dollar signs in their eyes.  Not a good fit for me, I'm not about
>> cash
>> in my pocket, that comes with doing a good job and someone talking about
>> money all the time scares the hell out of me.
>>
>>
>>
>> I now have a guy who looks goo

[WISPA] Need to beg borrow steal a Fluke Network Tester

[Scott Carullo]

Anyone know where I can get a Fluke network tester to give reports on 
customer premise wiring job?

I feel a one weeks rental fits my requirements the most.  Thanks.

Scott Carullo
Brevard Wireless
321-205-1100 x102




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] Partnership Agreements

[Larry Yunker]

Marlon,

Thanks for the kind words.  I sometimes (incorrectly) assume that list
members know/knew that I used to run an ISP/WISP.   Believe me... there are
days now when I'm cooped up in the office that I miss being out there
climbing towers, hanging antennas, installing routers and looking for the
next grain-leg to expand to.   

Regards,
Larry

-Original Message-
From: Marlon K. Schafer [mailto:o...@odessaoffice.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 12:00 AM
To: leyun...@wispadvantage.com; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements

For those that don't know him, Larry is an ex wisp all around good guy.

He's now a lawyer but I try hard not to hold that against him.

Did I say that I've known him for years and he's a great guy?  Litterally 
one of the founders of the WISP business.

marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "Larry Yunker" 
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements


> Robert,
>
> A good partnership agreement / shareholder agreement is a necessity if you
> are going to take on a partner and make your business venture a success.
> There are a lot of considerations:
>
> How to split profits
> How to split losses
> How to elect a board of directors
> How to make management decisions (usually voting control of the board)
> How to handle stalemates
> If the company is in need of money what sort of future contributions will 
> be
> required and how will those future contributions effect equity
> Is each partner/shareholder responsible for existing debts/liabilities of
> the company?
> Is each partner/shareholder entitled to any sort of salary? (what if the
> partner gets sick, cannot work, or will not work?)
> Under what circumstances may a partner/shareholder draw money out of the
> company?
> Is a partner entitled to work for the company or can a partner be "fired" 
> as
> an employee - if so, does that partner retain his equity in the company?
> What happens when you want to add new partners?
> What happens when a partner wants to cash-out?
> Can a partner sell his interest to just anyone or must 100% of the 
> partners
> agree to the sale or must the sale be ONLY to existing partners?
> What happens when a partner dies, gets a divorce, or files bankruptcy?
> How does the company get valued if a buyout is required?
> Do you mediate or arbitrate disputes or do you immediately go to court to
> resolve legal issues?
> What about competition - can a partner compete? Can an ex-partner compete?
> Define competition - can a (ex)partner hire away your employees?  Can a 
> (ex)
> partner solicit your customers?  For how long after a breakup must an
> (ex)partner remain out of the field?  Is a (ex)partner limited only from
> providing wireless access services or is he limited from web hosting, web
> design, computer repair, etc.
>
> The list goes on and on.  I've handled several partnership/shareholder
> agreements and with the use of a good template and a good understanding of
> the WISP business, it's possible to put together a plan to protect 
> yourself
> and your potential business partners from future disagreements.  Trust 
> only
> goes so far eventually something unforeseen will happen and when it 
> does
> you want to make sure that you have a document to cover your basis.
>
> Regards,
> Larry Yunker II, Esq.
> Barkan & Robon, Ltd.
> (419) 897-6500
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Robert West
> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:17 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: [WISPA] Partnership Agreements
>
> I've had as few people approach me in the recent past wanting to partner 
> up
> with me and to be honest, I can really use someone to carry half the load.
> I'm leery, however of getting screwed.  (My father was in business for 
> years
> with one partner and after they took on another they all got screwed to 
> the
> point they were out of business)  A requirement of a partner, for me, 
> would
> be someone buying in with enough cash to grow the company to carry the 
> extra
> weight of the new guy.  The ones in the past turned out to be flakes with
> only dollar signs in their eyes.  Not a good fit for me, I'm not about 
> cash
> in my pocket, that comes with doing a good job and someone talking about
> money all the time scares the hell out of me.
>
>
>
> I now have a guy who looks good.  Has the assets and interest.  Has 3 
> small
> towers in parts in his barn, he has a barn converted to an office,
> construction equipment, trailers, etc.  He understands there won't be any
> money flowing in his pocket for probably a year due to the expansion we're
> doing.  He says that's fine.   He also has the billing and general 
> paperwork
> experience and background.  (I absolutely hate dealing with the money and
> paperwork)  Looks good so far.  The construction equipment would be a 
> help,
> no more begg

Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!

[Mike]

U, only partially.  The old TV antennas were combo antennas that 
usually had a log periodic antenna for VHF and some sort of 
arrangement for UHF, usually a corner reflector, bow tie or 
something.  Because they were designed to be so wide band, they were 
huge.  Any 700 MHz antenna will be MUCH smaller.

TV channel 2 is 54 MHz, where a half wave dipole (or log periodic 
element) is 8.6 feet long.  That would be the longest element on a TV 
antenna and the reason they were so big.

The white space is also called the 700 MHz band.  A 700 MHz dipole is 
8 inches long, and a 800 MHz dipole is 7 inches long.  A 6 element 
log periodic for this range would be a little over a foot long.

Think along the lines of a 900 MHz antenna NOT a VHF TV antenna.

Mike

At 12:20 AM 10/23/2009, you wrote:
>A VERY good guide to the whitespaces antenna sizes... are the millions of TV
>antennas we've been using for 50+ years.
>
>
>-
>Mike Hammett
>Intelligent Computing Solutions
>http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
>--
>From: "Mike" 
>Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 7:52 PM
>To: ; "WISPA General List" 
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!
>
> > At 704 MHz, a quarter wave is about 4 inches long.  The driven
> > element of a Yagi would be about 8 inches long.  They would be way
> > shorter than 30 meters, or what do you mean?  Think about the 900 MHz
> > antennas you see but just a little bigger for the upper UHF white space.
> >
> > Ch 52 is 698 MHz.  Ch 69 is 800 MHz.  Some of the talk I've seen
> > about enormous antennas in the "white space" is ludicrous.
> >
> > Give me ANY part of it and the radios to use it and I
> > will.  Propagation would be superior to anything we're using now.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > At 07:46 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote:
> >>What equipment are they using? Did they have to do the 30 meter antennas?
> >>
> >>Scottie
> >>
> >>-- Original Message --
> >>From: "Gino Villarini" 
> >>Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> >>Date:  Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:05:22 -0400
> >>
> >> >IIRC, 6 mhz channels were proponed on the FCC RO, you could bond them...
> >> >so with current OFDM technologies you can get 10 - 12 Mbps on a 6 mhz
> >> >channel.
> >> >
> >> >Not bad for a NLOS, self install and mobile probability
> >> >
> >> >Gino A. Villarini
> >> >g...@aeronetpr.com
> >> >Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> >> >787.273.4143
> >> >-Original Message-
> >> >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> >> >Behalf Of Scott Carullo
> >> >Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:58 AM
> >> >To: WISPA General List
> >> >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >My question is how fast can their internet go using tv whitespace?
> >> >Sprint
> >> >used to serve this area with an unutilized tv channel and it was SLOW.
> >> >I
> >> >guess if you had nothing else but if it can't go one MB its not on my
> >> >radar
> >> >of concern.  Actually in our market if you cant deliver 10-20MB your not
> >> >
> >> >playing the game.
> >> >
> >> >Scott Carullo
> >> >Brevard Wireless
> >> >321-205-1100 x102
> >> > Original Message 
> >> >> From: "Jack Unger" 
> >> >> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:49 AM
> >> >> To: "WISPA General List" 
> >> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow!
> >> >>
> >> >> See the attached Case Study and Press Release.
> >> >>
> >> >> jack
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Jonathan Schmidt wrote:
> >> >> > Dell, Microsoft Launching Broadband Net In Rural Virginia
> >> >> > Computer Companies Join TDF Foundation, Spectrum Bridge To Debut
> >> >Network
> >> >> > Using 'White Spaces'
> >> >> >
> >> >> > John Eggerton -- Multichannel News, 10/21/2009 3:47:19 PM
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Computer companies Dell and Microsoft are scheduled to join with TDF
> >> >> > Foundation and Spectrum Bridge Wednesday to launch a broadband
> >> >network
> >> >in
> >> >> > rural Virginia, using the so-called white spaces between TV
> >> >channels.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > House Communications Subcommitee Chairman Rick Boucher, who
> >> >represents
> >> >> > rural Virginia, is scheduled to be on hand as the companies host a
> >> >Webcast
> >> >> > with residents of an Appalachian community talking about how
> >> >wireless
> >> >> > Interent connectivity can change their lives.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The government is currently working on a national broadband plan,
> >> >> > including freeing up even more spectrum space for wireless Internet.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Spectrum Bridge, a sort of Ebay for identifying available spectrum
> >> >in
> >> >> > secondary markets, launched a Web site in February to help identify
> >> >> > available open TV channels. The site can be used by wireless
> >> >Internet
> >> >> > providers to figure out whether there is enough spectrum in a
> >> >potential
> >> >> > service area to make it economically viable.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >-