RE: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen

2006-10-27 Thread rwf
Rich-
Just so we all know where you are coming from and in the interest of Full
Disclosure, please tell us your involvement in the
Dialcall/Nextel/Motorola/IDEN endeavor- specifically any vested interest in
the technology (hint- Patents).



-Original Message-

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen

I don't know what the beef is.  FleetCall bought up in the vicinity of 100
trunking  SMR channels in each major metro almost 20 yrs ago.  They claimed
to the FCC that they could serve significantly more users than the typical
100 users/channel of the current early 90s analog technology.  100 channels
at 100 users apiece serves only in the vicinity of 10,000 users.  With the
iDen technology they ultimately served almost half a million in the same
geographic area with the same spectrum.  So much for the unneeded
technology assessment.

Now that they're called NexTel, sure they continue adding whatever remaining
licenses they can get their hands on, but the 800 and 900 Trunking and bands
are land-locked (no room for expansion), so there's no new technology
targeted to this band that I know of.  Now that they're merged with Sprint,
it's no secret where their new technology is targeted (WiMAX).

Rich

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen

2006-10-27 Thread Larry Yunker
While filters can help, the problem that I see is that filters are: 1) 
expensive and 2) bulky.  Last time I checked, a cavity filter for the 
902-928 range was roughly $300-$400.  I don't see it being practical to 
install one of these at every customer site!


Cavity filters are fine for your broadcast sites, but that is of little help 
when the 900Mhz paging systems bleed over so much that they deafen the 
subscriber radios.


- Larry


- Original Message - 
From: Mike Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen


Filters fix this problem quite handily.  We recommend one on every system 
needed or not.  I don't see an issue here.


Mike



At 07:07 PM 10/26/2006, you wrote:

ISM 902-928.

Exact band and Power limit is relevant. Currently, the top 25% of ISM 900 
bandwidth (channel 4) is unusable, in MANY areas, due to blead over from 
930 Licensed high power gear (500W).  If the same thing were to occur at 
the lower portion of 900 ISM bandwdith, it could kill Channel 1 also, 
horribly effecting WISPs using unlicenced.  They also may be requesting to 
use higher power on the actual ISM bands, argueing Public Safety is more 
important than unlicensed use.  Iftheir request is granted, specifics 
should be lsited on how they are going to prevent interference with 
existing unlicensed band users.  Remember that the goal may not only be to 
use the spectrum. They have benefit in killing off all the 900Mhz WISPs, 
that could compete with Sprint/Nextel Next generation WiMax type Licensed 
700M-900M solutions.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband



Mike Cowan
Wireless Connections
A Division of ACC
166 Milan Ave
Norwalk, OH  44857
419-660-6100
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.wirelessconnections.net

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] FCC definitions

2006-10-27 Thread Matt Liotta
We have been advised that providers of internet services are not 
required to file form 499. However, we were additionally advised that 
providers of transport services are required to file form 499. We 
provide transport services in addition to internet services and as such 
file form 499. I believe we are one of the few if not the only 
unlicensed fixed wireless operator to file 499.


-Matt

chris cooper wrote:


Does a WISP fall under the designation of a telecommunications carrier 
even though it isn’t required to file form 499-a?


Under definition found at USC title 47,153.40 , it appears that an ISP 
and in particular a WISP offers telecommunications services and is 
deemed a “telecommunications carrier” .


From The USAC website:

To be a telecommunications carrier, the carrier must (1) allow the 
customer to transmit information of its own design and choosing, 
without change in the form or content of the information, and (2) 
provide that capability for a fee directly to the public, or to such 
classes of users as to be effectively available to the public (i.e., 
hold itself out to serve indifferently all potential users).


USAC defines a carrier as above. They also require that Eligible 
Telecommunications Carriers file 499-A. As an industry, if we supply 
telecommunications services, as defined above, directly to a school or 
library and don’t file the 499 – is that considered breaking the 
rules? Im caught between a rock and the horns of a dilemma….


Chris



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen

2006-10-27 Thread John Scrivner
If you have an adjacent channel carrier which is running hundreds of 
watts of power then you may not have a choice of whether to use the 
bandpass filter or not. Your system may not operate in the upper part of 
the 900 MHz band. What happens is that the adjacent carrier will swamp 
your receiver and your base station will essentially become deaf to your 
own, much quieter, client radios. The bandpass filter is the sole remedy 
to this. I think many people use filters by default because they do 
little harm to your system performance and may mean the difference 
between your system working or completely failing in the presence of 
higher-powered adjacent carriers.


I currently run Waverider 900 MHz systems and because of this I may have 
a system which is more sensitive to adjacent carrier swamping than other 
platforms. I simply do not know about other platforms to say one way or 
another. I believe Charles has tested several 900 MHz platforms and may 
be able to expand on this discussion. It is important to note that he 
may have a bias toward Canopy as he now sells that platform. I can only 
assume that his testing may have led him, in part, to this platform 
choice for 900 MHz systems. Care to share your thoughts Charles?


If anyone out there has any past experience with swamped 900 MHJz 
receivers, bandpass filters, different 900 MHz platforms, etc. then 
please share your thoughts about the use/need for bandpass filters. I 
would like to know more myself.

Scriv


Larry Yunker wrote:

While filters can help, the problem that I see is that filters are: 1) 
expensive and 2) bulky.  Last time I checked, a cavity filter for the 
902-928 range was roughly $300-$400.  I don't see it being practical 
to install one of these at every customer site!


Cavity filters are fine for your broadcast sites, but that is of 
little help when the 900Mhz paging systems bleed over so much that 
they deafen the subscriber radios.


- Larry


- Original Message - From: Mike Cowan 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen


Filters fix this problem quite handily.  We recommend one on every 
system needed or not.  I don't see an issue here.


Mike



At 07:07 PM 10/26/2006, you wrote:


ISM 902-928.

Exact band and Power limit is relevant. Currently, the top 25% of 
ISM 900 bandwidth (channel 4) is unusable, in MANY areas, due to 
blead over from 930 Licensed high power gear (500W).  If the same 
thing were to occur at the lower portion of 900 ISM bandwdith, it 
could kill Channel 1 also, horribly effecting WISPs using 
unlicenced.  They also may be requesting to use higher power on the 
actual ISM bands, argueing Public Safety is more important than 
unlicensed use.  Iftheir request is granted, specifics should be 
lsited on how they are going to prevent interference with existing 
unlicensed band users.  Remember that the goal may not only be to 
use the spectrum. They have benefit in killing off all the 900Mhz 
WISPs, that could compete with Sprint/Nextel Next generation WiMax 
type Licensed 700M-900M solutions.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband



Mike Cowan
Wireless Connections
A Division of ACC
166 Milan Ave
Norwalk, OH  44857
419-660-6100
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.wirelessconnections.net

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] FCC definitions - USF 499a

2006-10-27 Thread Peter R.

FCC Form 499a is the form for USF contributions.

The FCC has determined that Internet is an Information Service not a 
telecom service and has thus unregulated all parts of it. (See Brand-X 
case for a more detailed explanation).


Transport, Voice, and Inter-connected VoIP Providers must pay into USF 
(file a 499a).


For more info about the recent FCC USF VoIP ruling:
http://www.tmcnet.com/voip/1006/regulation-watch-plan-of-action-for-voip-usf-contributions.htm

Regards,

Peter
RAD-INFO, Inc.

Matt Liotta wrote:

We have been advised that providers of internet services are not 
required to file form 499. However, we were additionally advised that 
providers of transport services are required to file form 499. We 
provide transport services in addition to internet services and as 
such file form 499. I believe we are one of the few if not the only 
unlicensed fixed wireless operator to file 499.


-Matt

chris cooper wrote:



Does a WISP fall under the designation of a telecommunications 
carrier even though it isn’t required to file form 499-a?


Under definition found at USC title 47,153.40 , it appears that an 
ISP and in particular a WISP offers telecommunications services and 
is deemed a “telecommunications carrier” .


From The USAC website:

To be a telecommunications carrier, the carrier must (1) allow the 
customer to transmit information of its own design and choosing, 
without change in the form or content of the information, and (2) 
provide that capability for a fee directly to the public, or to such 
classes of users as to be effectively available to the public (i.e., 
hold itself out to serve indifferently all potential users).


USAC defines a carrier as above. They also require that Eligible 
Telecommunications Carriers file 499-A. As an industry, if we supply 
telecommunications services, as defined above, directly to a school 
or library and don’t file the 499 – is that considered breaking the 
rules? Im caught between a rock and the horns of a dilemma….


Chris



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen

2006-10-27 Thread Tom DeReggi

Cavity Filters create several additional problems

1) Assuming most filters are narrow individual channel widths... It takes 
away the benefit to move your Radio Freq Channel to stear around 
interference on the fly.


2) Assuming 1 Filter covers the full width of the Band... The filters add 
significant loss, 3-4 db, so channels 1,2,3 that may not need the filters 
get compromised, just to save channel 4.  In this business every DB counts.


3) Most filters get installed on the ground, where they can easilly get 
power and not need water proofing, then requiring large COAX runs to create 
additional signal loss. However, assuming one has a tower mountable unit, 
Many CAT5 powered 900M Radios, have the Antenna's built in, with no Coax 
option to install the filter on.


4) What we found worked best was to use very high grade Sector antennas w/ 
higher front to back ratios and sharper cut offs (which is hard to 
accomplish with NLOS 900M, but are a couple brands that accomplish this). 
These antenna get rid of most of the AP side colocation interference, near 
equivellent to the filter.  Although the filter did a bit better on AP side, 
it was counter-acted by reducing signal several DB, having negative effects 
on gaining the required signal based on interference and NLOS foliage 
degrading CPE signal. And of course combine this with good radios with 
built-in noise reduction.


With that said, I'm not saying a filter can't help in all cases, thats what 
they were designed for, to help. My point is that the benefit starts to be 
diminished signifantly compared to the cost.  This issue is overyly 
burdensome to the provider.   So the last thing we want to see happen is it 
get re-created on lower bands of 900Mhz.  (iDEN ?)


As far as filters If someone wanted to buy one, its a more complicated 
task than one always realizes. Cavity filters, notch filters, saw filters, 
Custom built, etc, what to get, and where to buy?  Do you have 
recommendations on which Cavity Filters to use, for outdoor tower mounting? 
Or do you use the ones that WaveRider sold?


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Larry Yunker [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen


While filters can help, the problem that I see is that filters are: 1) 
expensive and 2) bulky.  Last time I checked, a cavity filter for the 
902-928 range was roughly $300-$400.  I don't see it being practical to 
install one of these at every customer site!


Cavity filters are fine for your broadcast sites, but that is of little 
help when the 900Mhz paging systems bleed over so much that they deafen 
the subscriber radios.


- Larry


- Original Message - 
From: Mike Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen


Filters fix this problem quite handily.  We recommend one on every system 
needed or not.  I don't see an issue here.


Mike



At 07:07 PM 10/26/2006, you wrote:

ISM 902-928.

Exact band and Power limit is relevant. Currently, the top 25% of ISM 900 
bandwidth (channel 4) is unusable, in MANY areas, due to blead over from 
930 Licensed high power gear (500W).  If the same thing were to occur at 
the lower portion of 900 ISM bandwdith, it could kill Channel 1 also, 
horribly effecting WISPs using unlicenced.  They also may be requesting 
to use higher power on the actual ISM bands, argueing Public Safety is 
more important than unlicensed use.  Iftheir request is granted, 
specifics should be lsited on how they are going to prevent interference 
with existing unlicensed band users.  Remember that the goal may not only 
be to use the spectrum. They have benefit in killing off all the 900Mhz 
WISPs, that could compete with Sprint/Nextel Next generation WiMax type 
Licensed 700M-900M solutions.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband



Mike Cowan
Wireless Connections
A Division of ACC
166 Milan Ave
Norwalk, OH  44857
419-660-6100
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.wirelessconnections.net

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


[WISPA] The Gremlin, redux

2006-10-27 Thread David E. Smith
This problem was mentioned back in May (see
http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2006-May/025354.html ) but
it's still here, and I thought it might be worthwhile to bounce it off
folks again, to see if anyone has any new insights.

Occasionally, completely at random, many of our 2.4GHz APs start showing
high packet loss (usually 20-30%) and high latency (upwards of ten
seconds - not milliseconds, full seconds) for a few minutes at a time.

It always clears itself up eventually, usually after a minute or two,
but sometimes it won't go away for ten or fifteen minutes. It's
especially annoying when it happens in the middle of the day and all
those itchy business customers call in at once.

Random facts and tidbits:

* I've watched our network traffic, using Mikrotik's torch and StarOS'
beacon tools, and I don't see anything that looks like a DDOS, either
entering or leaving our network.
* It doesn't affect all our towers, just most of them. Specifically, our
most remote towers (geographically, not in terms of network topology)
are safe.
* (This is the Lonnie Nunweiler clause) It affects equally towers that
are bridged, routed, and hybrid bridged/routed.
* I don't think it's a backhaul problem, because towers on several
different kinds of backhaul links are affected simultaneously. (We've
got a mix of Alvarion and Trango gear for backhauls, and at least one
ancient YDI EX-1.) Also, there's no problem talking between tower
locations; pings between different APs take 10ms or so, just like they
normally do.
* It only affects our 2.4GHz customers - folks on 900MHz gear, 5.3GHz,
and 5.8GHz connections don't have any issues while things are going sour.

Basically, it looks like someone's got a big giant massive something
that spews out insane amounts of 2.4GHz interference, that somehow
knocks out all our customers within about a fifteen-mile radius, and
they turn it on every so often.

Does that conclusion sound reasonable? And if it does, what the heck can
I do about it?

Frustrated,

David Smith
MVN.net
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen

2006-10-27 Thread Rich Comroe

I'd originally written:

The preponderence of NexTel channels are in the private land mobile
806-821/850-865 conventional / trunking band, and a small percentage in the
902-906 trunking band.

...

I am most likely off on the numeric band


I sure was [numerically off - that is].  What's known as the '900' trunking 
band runs from 896-902.  I was only correct that it is *below* the 900 ISM 
band, and that it is only 12.5kHz channelized.


rwf wrote:

Just so we all know where you are coming from and in the interest of Full
Disclosure, please tell us your involvement in the
Dialcall/Nextel/Motorola/IDEN endeavor- specifically any vested interest 
in

the technology (hint- Patents).


Concerned that I might be some company shill?  No need.  I'd be happy to 
provide full disclosure.  I left Moto about 4 yrs ago.  I did some of the 
original work on Motorola's FCC comments to FleetCall's waiver request back 
in 92, but never worked in iDEN development.  None of my patents are 
specific to iDEN technology, but I'd be flattered if you had looked them up. 
I've no vested interest in any of them anyway (all patents rights while 
employed at Moto are assigned to Moto, not the inventors).  I've no vested 
interest in NexTel.  As close as I get is my neighbor is a NexTel employee 
in sales ... does that count?   Personally, I never liked or used NexTel 
service based on poor coverage / quality where I needed service.  Hey, terms 
like '800' MHz, '900' MHz are *not one allocation*.  Being from the radio 
manufacturing industry I'm acutely aware of how many different allocations 
are within these ranges.  That's all, I just trying to be helpful in 
pointing out where the NexTel 900 trunking you mentioned is in relation to 
900 MHz unlicensed ISM.  And that I know that the iDEN served orders or 
magnitude more customers for NexTel than the original SMR license holders 
ever had, as FleetCall's original petition for waiver had correctly claimed. 
And that it's public knowledge where NexTel's new developments are targeted 
to other bands in conjunction with Sprint.


chill,
Rich

- Original Message - 
From: rwf [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 2:24 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen



Rich-
Just so we all know where you are coming from and in the interest of Full
Disclosure, please tell us your involvement in the
Dialcall/Nextel/Motorola/IDEN endeavor- specifically any vested interest 
in

the technology (hint- Patents).



-Original Message-

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen

I don't know what the beef is.  FleetCall bought up in the vicinity of 100
trunking  SMR channels in each major metro almost 20 yrs ago.  They 
claimed

to the FCC that they could serve significantly more users than the typical
100 users/channel of the current early 90s analog technology.  100 
channels

at 100 users apiece serves only in the vicinity of 10,000 users.  With the
iDen technology they ultimately served almost half a million in the same
geographic area with the same spectrum.  So much for the unneeded
technology assessment.

Now that they're called NexTel, sure they continue adding whatever 
remaining
licenses they can get their hands on, but the 800 and 900 Trunking and 
bands

are land-locked (no room for expansion), so there's no new technology
targeted to this band that I know of.  Now that they're merged with 
Sprint,

it's no secret where their new technology is targeted (WiMAX).

Rich

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen

2006-10-27 Thread Jack Unger
Bleed over implies that the paging system is transmitting a signal 
that is too wide. This is typically NOT the case. Our rather inexpensive 
WISP AP receivers do not have adequate selectivity to reject strong 
nearby signals. In other words, it's our equipment problem not their 
equipment problem.


Also, WISP subscriber sites, unless located right under a 
paging/cellular tower aren't close enough to be overloaded by 
paging/cellular so they would not need the bandpass filter. Only our APs 
which are located near paging/cellular towers should need the bandpass 
filters.


jack


Larry Yunker wrote:

While filters can help, the problem that I see is that filters are: 1) 
expensive and 2) bulky.  Last time I checked, a cavity filter for the 
902-928 range was roughly $300-$400.  I don't see it being practical to 
install one of these at every customer site!


Cavity filters are fine for your broadcast sites, but that is of little 
help when the 900Mhz paging systems bleed over so much that they 
deafen the subscriber radios.


- Larry


- Original Message - From: Mike Cowan 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen


Filters fix this problem quite handily.  We recommend one on every 
system needed or not.  I don't see an issue here.


Mike



At 07:07 PM 10/26/2006, you wrote:


ISM 902-928.

Exact band and Power limit is relevant. Currently, the top 25% of ISM 
900 bandwidth (channel 4) is unusable, in MANY areas, due to blead 
over from 930 Licensed high power gear (500W).  If the same thing 
were to occur at the lower portion of 900 ISM bandwdith, it could 
kill Channel 1 also, horribly effecting WISPs using unlicenced.  They 
also may be requesting to use higher power on the actual ISM bands, 
argueing Public Safety is more important than unlicensed use.  
Iftheir request is granted, specifics should be lsited on how they 
are going to prevent interference with existing unlicensed band 
users.  Remember that the goal may not only be to use the spectrum. 
They have benefit in killing off all the 900Mhz WISPs, that could 
compete with Sprint/Nextel Next generation WiMax type Licensed 
700M-900M solutions.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband



Mike Cowan
Wireless Connections
A Division of ACC
166 Milan Ave
Norwalk, OH  44857
419-660-6100
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.wirelessconnections.net

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux

2006-10-27 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181

Scriv needs to hire a good consultant to come check things out!

big grin

Anyway, I've seen things like this before.  Not this bad, but close enough.

There have been a few causes.

First, as I recall, this ONLY effects towers within a 15 mile radius.  But 
it effects ALL towers within that cell.  right?


Assuming I remember that part correctly.  I've seen CPE lock it's self into 
a tx mode.  It'll still work, but will drive the system nuts.


I've seen customers download or upload massive files (usually ptp stuff) and 
open up hundreds of connections and whack a tower.  If it's the right tower 
and interferes with the other towers anywhere near it.


I've been knocked offline by towers over 30 miles away!  OK, that was a ptp 
wmux system with 8' dishes and 30dB of tx power, but still, it happened. 
With the new gear I'm using these days I can detect ap's 30+ miles away.  If 
conditions are JUST right, that could add quite a bit of noise locally.


There are times when radios go bad and start transmitting OUT of band.  I've 
seen wifi stuff flood the whole band.


Amps can do that too.

USUALLY it's the ap's that take it in the shorts when something like this 
happens.  After all, they are all up above the trees etc.


I've also seen computers take out entire networks when they get infected. 
If you don't have client to client blocking enabled on your ap's they could 
be massively overloaded with traffic that you'll not be able to see with a 
scan tool at the router, it could be traffic that's not even ip traffic! 
Remember, most of the gear we use with pass netbeui, ipx, appletalk etc.  I 
think the fact that towers that have routers on them between the OTHER ap's 
and the backhaul should prevent this.


Is it possible that your 900 and 5 gig gear ALWAYS has a router at the cpe 
and the 2.4 doesn't?  As I recall the Waverider gear, the ap is a router, 
that would keep things that would flow on a switch off of the 900 system.


Are there any towers that are sectorized that point in a direction that 
makes them unaffected?


Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 9:39 AM
Subject: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux



This problem was mentioned back in May (see
http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2006-May/025354.html ) but
it's still here, and I thought it might be worthwhile to bounce it off
folks again, to see if anyone has any new insights.

Occasionally, completely at random, many of our 2.4GHz APs start showing
high packet loss (usually 20-30%) and high latency (upwards of ten
seconds - not milliseconds, full seconds) for a few minutes at a time.

It always clears itself up eventually, usually after a minute or two,
but sometimes it won't go away for ten or fifteen minutes. It's
especially annoying when it happens in the middle of the day and all
those itchy business customers call in at once.

Random facts and tidbits:

* I've watched our network traffic, using Mikrotik's torch and StarOS'
beacon tools, and I don't see anything that looks like a DDOS, either
entering or leaving our network.
* It doesn't affect all our towers, just most of them. Specifically, our
most remote towers (geographically, not in terms of network topology)
are safe.
* (This is the Lonnie Nunweiler clause) It affects equally towers that
are bridged, routed, and hybrid bridged/routed.
* I don't think it's a backhaul problem, because towers on several
different kinds of backhaul links are affected simultaneously. (We've
got a mix of Alvarion and Trango gear for backhauls, and at least one
ancient YDI EX-1.) Also, there's no problem talking between tower
locations; pings between different APs take 10ms or so, just like they
normally do.
* It only affects our 2.4GHz customers - folks on 900MHz gear, 5.3GHz,
and 5.8GHz connections don't have any issues while things are going sour.

Basically, it looks like someone's got a big giant massive something
that spews out insane amounts of 2.4GHz interference, that somehow
knocks out all our customers within about a fifteen-mile radius, and
they turn it on every so often.

Does that conclusion sound reasonable? And if it does, what the heck can
I do about it?

Frustrated,

David Smith
MVN.net
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen

2006-10-27 Thread Jack Unger
I concur. When a 900 MHz access point (AP) is located near a 
high-power paging (or other high-power) transmitter then a bandpass 
filter is cheap insurance to avoid or minimize the AP receiver 
desensing (overload) that the high-power transmitter may cause. It's 
impossible to know in advance how near a high-power transmitter is too 
near. It depends on the AP receiver selectivity, the power of the 
nearby transmitter, the antenna patterns, the separation distance and 
the strength of the incoming signals from the WISP clients.
Bandpass filters will help. Physically moving further away from the 
high-power transmitter will also help.


jack

P.S. - This is discussed on page 258 of my book.


John Scrivner wrote:

If you have an adjacent channel carrier which is running hundreds of 
watts of power then you may not have a choice of whether to use the 
bandpass filter or not. Your system may not operate in the upper part of 
the 900 MHz band. What happens is that the adjacent carrier will swamp 
your receiver and your base station will essentially become deaf to your 
own, much quieter, client radios. The bandpass filter is the sole remedy 
to this. I think many people use filters by default because they do 
little harm to your system performance and may mean the difference 
between your system working or completely failing in the presence of 
higher-powered adjacent carriers.


I currently run Waverider 900 MHz systems and because of this I may have 
a system which is more sensitive to adjacent carrier swamping than other 
platforms. I simply do not know about other platforms to say one way or 
another. I believe Charles has tested several 900 MHz platforms and may 
be able to expand on this discussion. It is important to note that he 
may have a bias toward Canopy as he now sells that platform. I can only 
assume that his testing may have led him, in part, to this platform 
choice for 900 MHz systems. Care to share your thoughts Charles?


If anyone out there has any past experience with swamped 900 MHJz 
receivers, bandpass filters, different 900 MHz platforms, etc. then 
please share your thoughts about the use/need for bandpass filters. I 
would like to know more myself.

Scriv


Larry Yunker wrote:

While filters can help, the problem that I see is that filters are: 1) 
expensive and 2) bulky.  Last time I checked, a cavity filter for the 
902-928 range was roughly $300-$400.  I don't see it being practical 
to install one of these at every customer site!


Cavity filters are fine for your broadcast sites, but that is of 
little help when the 900Mhz paging systems bleed over so much that 
they deafen the subscriber radios.


- Larry


- Original Message - From: Mike Cowan 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen


Filters fix this problem quite handily.  We recommend one on every 
system needed or not.  I don't see an issue here.


Mike



At 07:07 PM 10/26/2006, you wrote:


ISM 902-928.

Exact band and Power limit is relevant. Currently, the top 25% of 
ISM 900 bandwidth (channel 4) is unusable, in MANY areas, due to 
blead over from 930 Licensed high power gear (500W).  If the same 
thing were to occur at the lower portion of 900 ISM bandwdith, it 
could kill Channel 1 also, horribly effecting WISPs using 
unlicenced.  They also may be requesting to use higher power on the 
actual ISM bands, argueing Public Safety is more important than 
unlicensed use.  Iftheir request is granted, specifics should be 
lsited on how they are going to prevent interference with existing 
unlicensed band users.  Remember that the goal may not only be to 
use the spectrum. They have benefit in killing off all the 900Mhz 
WISPs, that could compete with Sprint/Nextel Next generation WiMax 
type Licensed 700M-900M solutions.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband



Mike Cowan
Wireless Connections
A Division of ACC
166 Milan Ave
Norwalk, OH  44857
419-660-6100
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.wirelessconnections.net

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux

2006-10-27 Thread Jack Unger
If it's true that there's a giant something that's spewing noise, you 
can use a spectrum analyzer and try to identify the noise signature, 
then triangulate.

jack


David E. Smith wrote:


This problem was mentioned back in May (see
http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2006-May/025354.html ) but
it's still here, and I thought it might be worthwhile to bounce it off
folks again, to see if anyone has any new insights.

Occasionally, completely at random, many of our 2.4GHz APs start showing
high packet loss (usually 20-30%) and high latency (upwards of ten
seconds - not milliseconds, full seconds) for a few minutes at a time.

It always clears itself up eventually, usually after a minute or two,
but sometimes it won't go away for ten or fifteen minutes. It's
especially annoying when it happens in the middle of the day and all
those itchy business customers call in at once.

Random facts and tidbits:

* I've watched our network traffic, using Mikrotik's torch and StarOS'
beacon tools, and I don't see anything that looks like a DDOS, either
entering or leaving our network.
* It doesn't affect all our towers, just most of them. Specifically, our
most remote towers (geographically, not in terms of network topology)
are safe.
* (This is the Lonnie Nunweiler clause) It affects equally towers that
are bridged, routed, and hybrid bridged/routed.
* I don't think it's a backhaul problem, because towers on several
different kinds of backhaul links are affected simultaneously. (We've
got a mix of Alvarion and Trango gear for backhauls, and at least one
ancient YDI EX-1.) Also, there's no problem talking between tower
locations; pings between different APs take 10ms or so, just like they
normally do.
* It only affects our 2.4GHz customers - folks on 900MHz gear, 5.3GHz,
and 5.8GHz connections don't have any issues while things are going sour.

Basically, it looks like someone's got a big giant massive something
that spews out insane amounts of 2.4GHz interference, that somehow
knocks out all our customers within about a fifteen-mile radius, and
they turn it on every so often.

Does that conclusion sound reasonable? And if it does, what the heck can
I do about it?

Frustrated,

David Smith
MVN.net


--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux

2006-10-27 Thread David E. Smith
Jack Unger wrote:
 If it's true that there's a giant something that's spewing noise, you
 can use a spectrum analyzer and try to identify the noise signature,
 then triangulate.

If it would just stay broken for a couple hours, I'd love to do that.

Sadly, this problem usually just shows up for a minute or two at a time,
and never more than about fifteen minutes.

The boss and I have tried that before, and the problem is just too
intermittent for us to be able to narrow down that way. Of course, our
spectrum-fu is not that strong.

David Smith
MVN.net
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux

2006-10-27 Thread Eric Merkel

On 10/27/06, David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Jack Unger wrote:
 If it's true that there's a giant something that's spewing noise, you
 can use a spectrum analyzer and try to identify the noise signature,
 then triangulate.

If it would just stay broken for a couple hours, I'd love to do that.

Sadly, this problem usually just shows up for a minute or two at a time,
and never more than about fifteen minutes.

The boss and I have tried that before, and the problem is just too
intermittent for us to be able to narrow down that way. Of course, our
spectrum-fu is not that strong.

David Smith
MVN.net



David,

We have a similar situation happening mainly on one tower of ours.
Basicially it is a StarOS V2 on WRAP boards setup using Prism cards
for the AP's. We have 4 90* horizontal sectors. Everyones's signals
are great and it runs fine most of the time. Occassionaly we see times
where people have 10-20% packet loss. We look at the traffic on the
tower for abuse and/or virus and don't really find anything. We've
tried different channels and it doesn't seem to help. Other times
there is no loss at all.

Most of our clients on CB3's but we do have some Orinoco based
clients. The Orinoco based clients don't seem to have the problem as
much as the CB3's do however. I have not really pinned down what the
difference between them would be that would cause the Orinoco's not to
show this behaviour even though their signal may be somewhat lower.

We've taken a spectrum analyzer up the tower and don't really see any
other signals that are really hot out there but it feels like an
interefernce problem. Unfortunately, the tower is about an hour drive
so catching this while it happens has proved somewhat problematic.

In anycase, I feel your pain. I'll let you know if we figure out
what this issue is.

-Eric
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux

2006-10-27 Thread John Scrivner
This has been our plan all along. It just will not stay screwed up long 
enough to get a single heading. The signal level of the interference 
looks like data but it varies in level so much that finding the heading 
is not easy. I know spectrum analysis and this one has me stumped. I 
wish it would interfere and stay that way long enough to track it. I 
honestly think it is a leaky microwave oven because it runs about long 
enough to nuke a frozen chicken patty and happens at lunch time quite often!

:-)
Scriv


Jack Unger wrote:

If it's true that there's a giant something that's spewing noise, 
you can use a spectrum analyzer and try to identify the noise 
signature, then triangulate.

jack


David E. Smith wrote:


This problem was mentioned back in May (see
http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2006-May/025354.html ) but
it's still here, and I thought it might be worthwhile to bounce it off
folks again, to see if anyone has any new insights.

Occasionally, completely at random, many of our 2.4GHz APs start showing
high packet loss (usually 20-30%) and high latency (upwards of ten
seconds - not milliseconds, full seconds) for a few minutes at a time.

It always clears itself up eventually, usually after a minute or two,
but sometimes it won't go away for ten or fifteen minutes. It's
especially annoying when it happens in the middle of the day and all
those itchy business customers call in at once.

Random facts and tidbits:

* I've watched our network traffic, using Mikrotik's torch and StarOS'
beacon tools, and I don't see anything that looks like a DDOS, either
entering or leaving our network.
* It doesn't affect all our towers, just most of them. Specifically, our
most remote towers (geographically, not in terms of network topology)
are safe.
* (This is the Lonnie Nunweiler clause) It affects equally towers that
are bridged, routed, and hybrid bridged/routed.
* I don't think it's a backhaul problem, because towers on several
different kinds of backhaul links are affected simultaneously. (We've
got a mix of Alvarion and Trango gear for backhauls, and at least one
ancient YDI EX-1.) Also, there's no problem talking between tower
locations; pings between different APs take 10ms or so, just like they
normally do.
* It only affects our 2.4GHz customers - folks on 900MHz gear, 5.3GHz,
and 5.8GHz connections don't have any issues while things are going 
sour.


Basically, it looks like someone's got a big giant massive something
that spews out insane amounts of 2.4GHz interference, that somehow
knocks out all our customers within about a fifteen-mile radius, and
they turn it on every so often.

Does that conclusion sound reasonable? And if it does, what the heck can
I do about it?

Frustrated,

David Smith
MVN.net




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux

2006-10-27 Thread Rich Comroe

We look at the traffic on the
tower for abuse and/or virus and don't really find anything.


Just to be clear, you've checked your AP broadcast levels during the events 
and not found found them elevated?  We found the most crippling network 
events were not coming into the network from the outside, but were broadcast 
storms between 2 or more customers (repeated through the APs).  They act 
similar to the symptoms you cited (a few minutes of extremely elevated 
latency due to the short term load they place over the rf).


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Eric Merkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux



On 10/27/06, David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Jack Unger wrote:
 If it's true that there's a giant something that's spewing noise, you
 can use a spectrum analyzer and try to identify the noise signature,
 then triangulate.

If it would just stay broken for a couple hours, I'd love to do that.

Sadly, this problem usually just shows up for a minute or two at a time,
and never more than about fifteen minutes.

The boss and I have tried that before, and the problem is just too
intermittent for us to be able to narrow down that way. Of course, our
spectrum-fu is not that strong.

David Smith
MVN.net



David,

We have a similar situation happening mainly on one tower of ours.
Basicially it is a StarOS V2 on WRAP boards setup using Prism cards
for the AP's. We have 4 90* horizontal sectors. Everyones's signals
are great and it runs fine most of the time. Occassionaly we see times
where people have 10-20% packet loss. We look at the traffic on the
tower for abuse and/or virus and don't really find anything. We've
tried different channels and it doesn't seem to help. Other times
there is no loss at all.

Most of our clients on CB3's but we do have some Orinoco based
clients. The Orinoco based clients don't seem to have the problem as
much as the CB3's do however. I have not really pinned down what the
difference between them would be that would cause the Orinoco's not to
show this behaviour even though their signal may be somewhat lower.

We've taken a spectrum analyzer up the tower and don't really see any
other signals that are really hot out there but it feels like an
interefernce problem. Unfortunately, the tower is about an hour drive
so catching this while it happens has proved somewhat problematic.

In anycase, I feel your pain. I'll let you know if we figure out
what this issue is.

-Eric
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux

2006-10-27 Thread Matt Larsen - Lists

Maybe there is a microwave lighting system somewhere nearby.

You know what to do with an outdoor light that needs to be shut off.:^)

Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


John Scrivner wrote:
This has been our plan all along. It just will not stay screwed up 
long enough to get a single heading. The signal level of the 
interference looks like data but it varies in level so much that 
finding the heading is not easy. I know spectrum analysis and this one 
has me stumped. I wish it would interfere and stay that way long 
enough to track it. I honestly think it is a leaky microwave oven 
because it runs about long enough to nuke a frozen chicken patty and 
happens at lunch time quite often!

:-)
Scriv


Jack Unger wrote:

If it's true that there's a giant something that's spewing noise, 
you can use a spectrum analyzer and try to identify the noise 
signature, then triangulate.

jack


David E. Smith wrote:


This problem was mentioned back in May (see
http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/2006-May/025354.html ) but
it's still here, and I thought it might be worthwhile to bounce it off
folks again, to see if anyone has any new insights.

Occasionally, completely at random, many of our 2.4GHz APs start 
showing

high packet loss (usually 20-30%) and high latency (upwards of ten
seconds - not milliseconds, full seconds) for a few minutes at a time.

It always clears itself up eventually, usually after a minute or two,
but sometimes it won't go away for ten or fifteen minutes. It's
especially annoying when it happens in the middle of the day and all
those itchy business customers call in at once.

Random facts and tidbits:

* I've watched our network traffic, using Mikrotik's torch and StarOS'
beacon tools, and I don't see anything that looks like a DDOS, either
entering or leaving our network.
* It doesn't affect all our towers, just most of them. Specifically, 
our

most remote towers (geographically, not in terms of network topology)
are safe.
* (This is the Lonnie Nunweiler clause) It affects equally towers that
are bridged, routed, and hybrid bridged/routed.
* I don't think it's a backhaul problem, because towers on several
different kinds of backhaul links are affected simultaneously. (We've
got a mix of Alvarion and Trango gear for backhauls, and at least one
ancient YDI EX-1.) Also, there's no problem talking between tower
locations; pings between different APs take 10ms or so, just like they
normally do.
* It only affects our 2.4GHz customers - folks on 900MHz gear, 5.3GHz,
and 5.8GHz connections don't have any issues while things are going 
sour.


Basically, it looks like someone's got a big giant massive something
that spews out insane amounts of 2.4GHz interference, that somehow
knocks out all our customers within about a fifteen-mile radius, and
they turn it on every so often.

Does that conclusion sound reasonable? And if it does, what the heck 
can

I do about it?

Frustrated,

David Smith
MVN.net





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux

2006-10-27 Thread Eric Merkel

On 10/27/06, Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

We look at the traffic on the
tower for abuse and/or virus and don't really find anything.

Just to be clear, you've checked your AP broadcast levels during the events
and not found found them elevated?  We found the most crippling network
events were not coming into the network from the outside, but were broadcast
storms between 2 or more customers (repeated through the APs).  They act
similar to the symptoms you cited (a few minutes of extremely elevated
latency due to the short term load they place over the rf).

Rich



We try to mitigate this problem by the following:

1) Turning off inter-BSS Relay
2) We block all the typical MS ports(135-139) which broadcast all the
time via iptables
3) Packet shape all connections via CBQ on the AP itself to limit how
much bandwidth any one customer can consume

Looking at the beacon realtime manager and tcpdump, we've never seen
an unreasonable # of broadcasts when this is happening.

-Eric
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux

2006-10-27 Thread David E. Smith
On Fri, October 27, 2006 1:07 pm, Eric Merkel wrote:

 We have a similar situation happening mainly on one tower of ours.
 Basicially it is a StarOS V2 on WRAP boards setup using Prism cards
 for the AP's. We have 4 90* horizontal sectors.

Hm. A few months back, we converted the last of our towers to StarOS V2 on
RouterBoard 500s, mostly with Prism-based cards (but we do have a few
Orinoco and at least one or two Atheros cards in the mix).

Do you also have the insane latency, perchance? (Or even just
higher-than-normal latency?) A few minutes of high packet loss just leads
to a slow (but usable) connection; a few minutes of ten-second latency
renders their connection effectively dead, as everything times out.

Which reminds me, just to try to rule out network traffic another way: If
I log into an AP with a private address (say 10.232.175.1/27) and ping a
wireless client device in that same subnet (10.232.175.20), I *still* see
the same latency and packet loss. The AP knows that those ping packets are
just going out its own wireless interface, so they're not going anywhere
else except through that last-mile hop. And since they're private
addresses, there shouldn't be anything on the public Internet spewing
traffic towards them.

 Most of our clients on CB3's but we do have some Orinoco based
 clients. The Orinoco based clients don't seem to have the problem as
 much as the CB3's do however. I have not really pinned down what the
 difference between them would be that would cause the Orinoco's not to
 show this behaviour even though their signal may be somewhat lower.

Most of my end-users are on CB3s now as well, but we still have a few
Orinoco radios (mostly old RG-1000s with Karlnet firmware), and a few
other random things as well (WRAP boards with Atheros, probably still a
few eight-year-old Maxtechs and Nokia clients, hacked-up Linksys routers
with custom firmware, and Ghu knows what else). As far as I can tell,
they're ALL affected equally.

While I'm still not absolutely convinced that this is an interference
problem, I think I've ruled out everything else.

David Smith
MVN.net
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] The Gremlin, redux

2006-10-27 Thread David E. Smith
On Fri, October 27, 2006 3:11 pm, Eric Merkel wrote:

 1) Turning off inter-BSS Relay

Already done, on most towers. (We do have a couple of towers where one
business, with two locations, wants to do VPN-type stuff between 'em.)

 2) We block all the typical MS ports(135-139) which broadcast all the
 time via iptables

Done. We block 135-139, 445, and a couple other ports, both TCP and UDP.

 3) Packet shape all connections via CBQ on the AP itself to limit how
 much bandwidth any one customer can consume

Mostly done. (For historical reasons, some of our customers are still part
of a giant bridged network, and their traffic is shaped in our office not
at the AP, but those customers are relatively few and growing fewer by the
week.)

David Smith
MVN.net
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen

2006-10-27 Thread Tom DeReggi

Jack,

That all sounds good, and it brings up a good point, that we are just as 
probable to be the culprit, not just the other guy.

Besides, their gear costs more, right :-)
However, what specific gear do you have experience with, on this issue, to 
support your comment?
I'm not sure that I am knowledgable enough on the topic, to know for sure 
which side is the flaw, how would we tell?


I use Trango 900. Trango's have a built-in specrum site survey tool, that 
also scans a bit lower and higher than the ISM edge.  My comment was based 
on the fact that, when I do the site survey, I see signals in the neg 20-30 
range, spanning from significantly above 930 down to mid portion of ISM 
channel 4 (924 or so).
Have you verified the accuracy of the Trango tool, and how it reacts to this 
situation?


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen


Bleed over implies that the paging system is transmitting a signal that 
is too wide. This is typically NOT the case. Our rather inexpensive WISP 
AP receivers do not have adequate selectivity to reject strong nearby 
signals. In other words, it's our equipment problem not their equipment 
problem.


Also, WISP subscriber sites, unless located right under a paging/cellular 
tower aren't close enough to be overloaded by paging/cellular so they 
would not need the bandpass filter. Only our APs which are located near 
paging/cellular towers should need the bandpass filters.


jack


Larry Yunker wrote:

While filters can help, the problem that I see is that filters are: 1) 
expensive and 2) bulky.  Last time I checked, a cavity filter for the 
902-928 range was roughly $300-$400.  I don't see it being practical to 
install one of these at every customer site!


Cavity filters are fine for your broadcast sites, but that is of little 
help when the 900Mhz paging systems bleed over so much that they deafen 
the subscriber radios.


- Larry


- Original Message - From: Mike Cowan 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sprint / Nextel to use 900mz for iDen


Filters fix this problem quite handily.  We recommend one on every 
system needed or not.  I don't see an issue here.


Mike



At 07:07 PM 10/26/2006, you wrote:


ISM 902-928.

Exact band and Power limit is relevant. Currently, the top 25% of ISM 
900 bandwidth (channel 4) is unusable, in MANY areas, due to blead over 
from 930 Licensed high power gear (500W).  If the same thing were to 
occur at the lower portion of 900 ISM bandwdith, it could kill Channel 
1 also, horribly effecting WISPs using unlicenced.  They also may be 
requesting to use higher power on the actual ISM bands, argueing Public 
Safety is more important than unlicensed use.  Iftheir request is 
granted, specifics should be lsited on how they are going to prevent 
interference with existing unlicensed band users.  Remember that the 
goal may not only be to use the spectrum. They have benefit in killing 
off all the 900Mhz WISPs, that could compete with Sprint/Nextel Next 
generation WiMax type Licensed 700M-900M solutions.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband



Mike Cowan
Wireless Connections
A Division of ACC
166 Milan Ave
Norwalk, OH  44857
419-660-6100
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.wirelessconnections.net

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Fw: PRESS RELEASE: New Report Calls for Fundamental Reformin Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Communications Policy

2006-10-27 Thread Tom DeReggi



This is a dangerous topic as well.

The writer is somewhat brilliant, in the sense that 
he recognizes it is wasteful, for Public safety spectrum to be limited to old 
technology principles, and used exclusively for federal public safety. Wouldn't 
it be nice if commerical and public safety could share it? That depends? If the 
Public safety spectrum was allocated to a single large owner of that spectrum, 
it means that they can leverage the Public safety spectrum to uniquely and 
unfarely compete against existing commerical providers that don't have access to 
that spectrum. What do you think would happen if 700Mhz public safety 
lciense holders were allowed to exclusively use the 700Mhz band to compete 
against independant ISP?

The approach to have public safety have use on a 
priority basis, and to one large commercial entity for normal operation, is 
backwards and uncompetitive. What really needs to happen, is that Public 
safety needs it for normal use, and unlicensed should be allowed on a secondary 
basis.Or Locals should be able to license itin their area for 
secondary use.

Tom DeReggiRapidDSL  Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless 
Broadband



  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Marlon K. 
  Schafer (509) 982-2181 
  To: wireless@wispa.org 
  Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 11:45 
  AM
  Subject: [WISPA] Fw: PRESS RELEASE: New 
  Report Calls for Fundamental Reformin Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless 
  Communications Policy
  
  fyi
  
  Marlon(509) 
  982-2181 
  Equipment sales(408) 907-6910 
  (Vonage) 
  Consulting services42846865 
  (icq) 
  And I run my own wisp!64.146.146.12 (net meeting)www.odessaoffice.com/wirelesswww.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
  
  
  - Original Message - 
  From: New America Foundation 
  To: undisclosed-recipients: 
  Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 4:14 PM
  Subject: PRESS RELEASE: New Report Calls for Fundamental Reform in 
  Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Communications Policy
  
  
  For Immediate 
  Release
 
   
   
 
 Contact:Jerry 
  IrvineOctober 26, 
  2006 
  (301) 801-3356 (cell) 
   
   
   
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  New Report Calls for Fundamental 
  Reform in Public Safety Spectrumand Wireless Communications 
  Policy
  
  Billions in federal investment in 
  emergency radio interoperability will be wasted without major reforms; 
  federal-level Integrated Wireless Network plan called inefficient; IWN should 
  either be opened to state and local first responders or terminated, says 
  academic expert
  
  
  WASHINGTON (October 26) — The United States must 
  fundamentally alter how spectrum is given to emergency agencies and how 
  wireless safety networks are built and managed before billions of dollars of 
  new federal investments in public safety interoperability are made in the next 
  few years, said Jon M. Peha, Professor of Electrical Engineering and Public 
  Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, in a report 
  for the New American Foundation released at a forum 
  earlier today. 
  
  “Unfortunately, policymakers seem likely to preserve 
  the antiquated status quo, thereby forfeiting an opportunity to make 
  communications failures less common, to use spectrum more efficiently, and to 
  reduce the costs borne by taxpayers,” Peha said. Peha listed four 
  sources of new federal investment that he believes are at 
  risk:
  
  · 
  $3-to$30 billion on a brand new, 
  nationwide wireless radio system (IWN) for federal first responders; 
  
  · 
  24 MHz of cleared, new spectrum, 
  worth $5-to-$10 billion; 
  · 
  $1 billion in set-aside funds for 
  interoperability, to be taken from the auction of adjacent spectrum to 
  commercial users; and
  · 
  Hundreds of millions of dollars 
  annually in homeland security grants for interoperability to state and local 
  agencies.
  
  Peha said IWN should be cancelled unless state and 
  local agencies are added to it. “There is no reason to invest billions 
  of taxpayer dollars in a network that serves only federal first responders, 
  when a vast majority of first responders work for state and local agencies,” 
  he concluded.
  
  A panel of experts assembled at today’s forum 
  concurred that major changes are needed. 
  
  Peha attacked four key assumptions that he said 
  underlie the huge problems faced by public safety wireless 
  systems:
  
  · 
  Primary responsibility for 
  emergency communications systems can no longer reside with tens of thousands 
  of individual agencies and communities. Networks must be designed at 
  national or regional levels. 
  · 
  It is not necessary that public 
  safety run its own systems; there are circumstances in which it is efficient 
  to utilize commercial systems as well. 
  · 
  Public safety insists on 
  functioning in spectrum devoted solely to public safety, using equipment 
  entirely dedicated to public safety. We should consider making some spectrum 
  available 

[WISPA] FREE OSS and Billing Software for WiSPS

2006-10-27 Thread Brian Rohrbacher

FREE OSS and Billing Software for WiSPS
And then there are all the paid services.

http://www.dboss-online.com/

read the pdf
prices on page 22, but I emailed them and they said the prices are 
changing.  More like $250.00 a month for 0 - 250 customers (bundled 
services)


http://www.dboss-online.com/wisp_services.pdf

Pretty neat services they offer.  I'm not technical enough to do it all 
on my own, this looks ok.


Give me some input here.  Are all these services needed?  How does the 
value look?


Brian Rohrbacher
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] FREE OSS and Billing Software for WiSPS

2006-10-27 Thread Matt Liotta

I like how they end their pitch...

The reason and dreams behind getting into the WiSP business in the 
first place
can finally be realized by contracting with RidgeviewTel’s WiSP Services 
division.


-Matt

Brian Rohrbacher wrote:

FREE OSS and Billing Software for WiSPS
And then there are all the paid services.

http://www.dboss-online.com/

read the pdf
prices on page 22, but I emailed them and they said the prices are 
changing. More like $250.00 a month for 0 - 250 customers (bundled 
services)


http://www.dboss-online.com/wisp_services.pdf

Pretty neat services they offer. I'm not technical enough to do it all 
on my own, this looks ok.


Give me some input here. Are all these services needed? How does the 
value look?


Brian Rohrbacher


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/