Sorry to Hijack this but what was the final EIRP determined by the FCC on
3.65? I remember they were talking about allowing 24 watts I believe I read
on the site somewhere. Lastly where on the fcc site do you register your
base stations? What about searching the site for deployed base stations in
I'd like to add that in the USA, its really only good to use a 1watt radio
for the CPE side, taking advantage of PtP rules, for long distances.
Using the full 30db at the AP is like death, if we remember back to the
Metrocom days. Installing full power radios with 6 db omnis spewing noise in
Arg, with all due respect if you are having trouble with noise, those
Prox T1 radios are just going to inflict noise on the others. May I ask
what problem you are having with Trango and what model?
Are you using their T1 giga? Or just Ethernet radios? You might want to try
a smaller
The answer is you should not take others diagnosises. You should make your
own.
Go out there and prove whether your stuff is causing the interference or
not, with the on/off test.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
- Original Message -
From: Matt
It looks like the FCC now has the votes necessary to sanction Comcast for
its P2P throttling.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080725-hammer-drops-at-last-fcc-oppos
es-comcast-p2p-throttling.html
It's set to be vote on officially next Friday. This is a disturbing
decision if it
SS7 A links are very touchy. All radios I have used that were designed for
T1 work much better than using TDM over IP mux gear. Noise is no issue.
There isn't another transmitter within 25 miles. I have used PCom, Proxim
and Westernmux T1 radios at other places with no problems at all. This
Got it.
Yeah, If there isn't an issue with crowded spectrum, thoseWmux units really
sing well for T1 use.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
- Original Message -
From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
We had another electrical storm last night. One of my AP's is acting
weird. It is still running but the receive signals are up in the high
80's and low 90's now instead of 60's and 70's. They are also kinda
bouncing 20db. I am on this tower at my house and could not connect last
night or this
Bow to the east each morning and recite...
Oh great Father in Washington, thou knowest all, divinest all, we are
unworthy to have thy great protection and wisdom...
Or, we could start telling the FCC they're full of it...
insert witty tagline here
-
The radio is blown due to static electricity, at least that's my guess.
Replace the AP (or just the radio card depending on what your AP is) and
it should be fixed.
Travis
Microserv
Mark McElvy wrote:
We had another electrical storm last night. One of my AP's is acting
weird. It is still
But why would it be getting better?
Mark McElvy
AccuBak Data Systems, Inc.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 3:26 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Weird signal levels
The radio is
It's set to be vote on officially next Friday. This is a disturbing
decision if it implies that ISPs will no longer be allowed to control P2P
traffic flow originating from their own customers on their own networks.
I agree. Will this also mean that we will no longer be allowed to
block ports
This will work. The user is using a rotopol to convert a canopy to
horizontal polarization.
- Original Message -
From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 4:53 PM
Subject: [WISPA] wow
And here is what happens when
Does it also add gain or just change polarity?
Travis
Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
This will work. The user is using a rotopol to convert a canopy to
horizontal polarization.
- Original Message -
From: "Travis Johnson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org
I have said this over and over in various forums: Throttling/shaping
on a per-application basis is not a good idea. Bandwidth caps and
pay-per-bit are the correct way to handle bandwidth hogs. The FCC
doesn't care how you limit, as long as you apply it equally to all
bandwidth types.
I don't think there is an issue if you fully disclose to your customer
exactly what you are doing. If you tell the customer that you do your very
best to kill or impair bittorrent then they have the choice of continuing
with your or going somewhere else. Comcast originally got pinched for not
Just changes polarity. Allows H pol on reflectors. We have only tested it on
our own reflectors but I can't think why it wouldn't work on others as
pictured. It does move the phase center about a half an inch.
- Original Message -
From: Travis Johnson
To: WISPA General List
This whole thing makes me wounder...
What about when it is spelled out to the user before they sign up?
I inform all users that we reserve the right to limit traffic,
especially peer to peer traffic. I also tell them that we do not
support or recommend VoIP services. They are welcome to try
If it is slowly getting better, I'd bet on water.
Mark McElvy wrote:
But why would it be getting better?
Mark McElvy
AccuBak Data Systems, Inc.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 3:26 PM
I have an 18 mile BH link with two motorola reflectors. I added rotopols
to this link and after realignment lost only 1 db. It is possible that
further alignment work could remove this loss of db. They work great.
Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
Just changes polarity. Allows H pol on reflectors. We
Getting better??? Water somewhere
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-Original Message-
From: Mark McElvy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:11:49
To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Weird signal levels
But why would it be getting better?
Hi-
I'm trying to get familiar with setting up wireless mesh using the
Demarctech products. I'm very experienced with Tropos and Cisco outdoor
mesh, but the OLSR with its config files and lack of much status info is
throwing me for a loop. There must be someone around who has done this and
I
Yet anither reason us (WISP) and all Cable and DSL(telcos) will go to a
usage based systemno more all you can eat. I am not sure, but I bet they
(FCC) have no control on us in that circumstance.
Just my 1 pence.
Scottie
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
Blair,
I do the same thing. Whenever we do an install we tell them before we do it
that we throttle ptp traffic. Wonder how this will play out as we are a
all-you-can eat buffet except that we fully disclose ptp trafficking and I
am wanting to change to a usage based model.
-Original
More on this...Many of us have not already implemented this because of our
competition from cable and dsl. Same for me! I think the the FCC has finally
provided ALL broadband providers a reason to implemente this(as we can't
control traffic) although it will be a major blow to the U.S. broadband
25 matches
Mail list logo
