Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam
Don't know any prices - gotta call em to find out :) On 1/23/09, Travis Johnson wrote: > Hi, > > Also I just remembered these guys: http://www.stardot-tech.com > > Travis > Microserv > > Josh Luthman wrote: >> >> Video isn't too big of a concern, still images are just fine. Either way >> I'm happy - but I do not want to spend thousands for a camera that is >> simply >> for show. >> >> I need to be able to get this thing 200' in the air without locking >> up/freezing/etc and provide a picture/video (flash!) on a website. From >> what I see in the examples, the Qorvus meshcam looks like it is fitting my >> needs. >> >> I don't expect bandwidth to be an issue, either. If at all possible I'd >> like it to be scalable so the camera sends data to a web server which >> users >> contact as well. >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. >> --- Henry Spencer >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Tom DeReggi >> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> The inscape cameras are really nice, and worth every penny if someone >>> needs >>> a full featured camera. >>> >>> There are MANY low cost cameras. For example Intellinet (icintracom) has >>> some inexpenseive ones also. >>> But the inexpensive ones all share a common feature flaw Do they >>> support >>> MPEG4? Most of the inexpensive ones do not. >>> That is the difference between a 300kbps requirement for full motion >>> stream, >>> and a 1.5mbps requirement for full motion stream. >>> >>> If bandwidth use is not an issue, then it doesn't matter. For example, if >>> you only need to capturing a frame (mjpeg) every two seconds, its not an >>> issue. >>> >>> Tom DeReggi >>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >>> >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 10:48 PM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam >>> >>> >>> Look into Trendware they have some pretty decent low cost pretty decent quality ones with good functionality. /Eje Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: Josh Luthman Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:45:04 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam Well that means I'm still looking for a simple network camera =) If you're afraid to be targeted as one of those Myspace Men just shoot it off list =P Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:38 PM, 3-dB Networks wrote: > > Yeah they are not necessarily cheap lol. > > We used them as a security solution... not really a webcam for our > customers > > Daniel White > 3-dB Networks > http://www.3dbnetworks.com > > > >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >> >>> >>> On >>> >> >> Behalf Of Josh Luthman >> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:33 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam >> >> Those look to be way more elaborate then our goal. We simply want >> images (or possibly even video if it is flash) on our website. >> >> On 1/22/09, 3-dB Networks wrote: >> >>> >>> Our website is still under construction (I guess that's what we are >>> >> >> calling >> >>> >>> it) >>> >>> Check them out here: >>> >>> http://www.inscapedata.com/airgoggle.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 Josh Luthman Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:04 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam If I click IP Cameras on your products page I get 0 results on a >> >> search >> page :/ On 1/22/09, 3-dB Networks wrote: > > Inscape Data... we used them on our towers. > > We sell them too ;-) > > Daniel White > 3-dB Networks > http://www.3dbnetworks.com > > > >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: >> >>> >>> wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >>> On >> >> Behalf Of Josh Luthman >> Sent: Thursday,
Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam
Panasonic Network Cameras are very stable / reliable they have many different models. You might want to check them out as well. Regards Faisal Imtiaz -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 12:11 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam Video isn't too big of a concern, still images are just fine. Either way I'm happy - but I do not want to spend thousands for a camera that is simply for show. I need to be able to get this thing 200' in the air without locking up/freezing/etc and provide a picture/video (flash!) on a website. From what I see in the examples, the Qorvus meshcam looks like it is fitting my needs. I don't expect bandwidth to be an issue, either. If at all possible I'd like it to be scalable so the camera sends data to a web server which users contact as well. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: > The inscape cameras are really nice, and worth every penny if someone > needs a full featured camera. > > There are MANY low cost cameras. For example Intellinet (icintracom) > has some inexpenseive ones also. > But the inexpensive ones all share a common feature flaw Do they > support MPEG4? Most of the inexpensive ones do not. > That is the difference between a 300kbps requirement for full motion > stream, and a 1.5mbps requirement for full motion stream. > > If bandwidth use is not an issue, then it doesn't matter. For example, > if you only need to capturing a frame (mjpeg) every two seconds, its > not an issue. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 10:48 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam > > > > Look into Trendware they have some pretty decent low cost pretty > > decent quality ones with good functionality. > > > > /Eje > > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Josh Luthman > > > > Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:45:04 > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam > > > > > > Well that means I'm still looking for a simple network camera =) > > > > If you're afraid to be targeted as one of those Myspace Men just > > shoot it off list =P > > > > Josh Luthman > > Office: 937-552-2340 > > Direct: 937-552-2343 > > 1100 Wayne St > > Suite 1337 > > Troy, OH 45373 > > > > Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. > > --- Henry Spencer > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:38 PM, 3-dB Networks wrote: > > > >> Yeah they are not necessarily cheap lol. > >> > >> We used them as a security solution... not really a webcam for our > >> customers > >> > >> Daniel White > >> 3-dB Networks > >> http://www.3dbnetworks.com > >> > >> > >> >-Original Message- > >> >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org > >> >[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On > >> >Behalf Of Josh Luthman > >> >Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:33 PM > >> >To: WISPA General List > >> >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam > >> > > >> >Those look to be way more elaborate then our goal. We simply want > >> >images (or possibly even video if it is flash) on our website. > >> > > >> >On 1/22/09, 3-dB Networks wrote: > >> >> Our website is still under construction (I guess that's what we > >> >> are > >> >calling > >> >> it) > >> >> > >> >> Check them out here: > >> >> > >> >> http://www.inscapedata.com/airgoggle.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 Josh Luthman > >> >>>Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:04 PM > >> >>>To: WISPA General List > >> >>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam > >> >>> > >> >>>If I click IP Cameras on your products page I get 0 results on a > >> >search > >> >>>page :/ > >> >>> > >> >>>On 1/22/09, 3-dB Networks wrote: > >> Inscape Data... we used them on our towers. > >> > >> We sell them too ;-) > >> > >> Daniel White > >> 3-dB Networks > >> http://www.3dbnetworks.com > >> > >> > >> >-Original Message- > >> >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: > wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > >> >>>On > >> >Behalf Of Josh Luthman > >> >Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 6:26 PM > >> >To: WISPA General List > >> >Subject: [WISPA] Network tower cam > >> > > >> >We are interested in putting a camera up on a tower to get > >> >some > >> >"we're > >> >700 > >> >1337 4 u" feel. I do want a PoE/Ethernet one - no coax/an
Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam
Video isn't too big of a concern, still images are just fine. Either way I'm happy - but I do not want to spend thousands for a camera that is simply for show. I need to be able to get this thing 200' in the air without locking up/freezing/etc and provide a picture/video (flash!) on a website. From what I see in the examples, the Qorvus meshcam looks like it is fitting my needs. I don't expect bandwidth to be an issue, either. If at all possible I'd like it to be scalable so the camera sends data to a web server which users contact as well. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: > The inscape cameras are really nice, and worth every penny if someone needs > a full featured camera. > > There are MANY low cost cameras. For example Intellinet (icintracom) has > some inexpenseive ones also. > But the inexpensive ones all share a common feature flaw Do they > support > MPEG4? Most of the inexpensive ones do not. > That is the difference between a 300kbps requirement for full motion > stream, > and a 1.5mbps requirement for full motion stream. > > If bandwidth use is not an issue, then it doesn't matter. For example, if > you only need to capturing a frame (mjpeg) every two seconds, its not an > issue. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 10:48 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam > > > > Look into Trendware they have some pretty decent low cost pretty decent > > quality ones with good functionality. > > > > /Eje > > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Josh Luthman > > > > Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:45:04 > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam > > > > > > Well that means I'm still looking for a simple network camera =) > > > > If you're afraid to be targeted as one of those Myspace Men just shoot it > > off list =P > > > > Josh Luthman > > Office: 937-552-2340 > > Direct: 937-552-2343 > > 1100 Wayne St > > Suite 1337 > > Troy, OH 45373 > > > > Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. > > --- Henry Spencer > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:38 PM, 3-dB Networks wrote: > > > >> Yeah they are not necessarily cheap lol. > >> > >> We used them as a security solution... not really a webcam for our > >> customers > >> > >> Daniel White > >> 3-dB Networks > >> http://www.3dbnetworks.com > >> > >> > >> >-Original Message- > >> >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On > >> >Behalf Of Josh Luthman > >> >Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:33 PM > >> >To: WISPA General List > >> >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam > >> > > >> >Those look to be way more elaborate then our goal. We simply want > >> >images (or possibly even video if it is flash) on our website. > >> > > >> >On 1/22/09, 3-dB Networks wrote: > >> >> Our website is still under construction (I guess that's what we are > >> >calling > >> >> it) > >> >> > >> >> Check them out here: > >> >> > >> >> http://www.inscapedata.com/airgoggle.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 Josh Luthman > >> >>>Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:04 PM > >> >>>To: WISPA General List > >> >>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam > >> >>> > >> >>>If I click IP Cameras on your products page I get 0 results on a > >> >search > >> >>>page :/ > >> >>> > >> >>>On 1/22/09, 3-dB Networks wrote: > >> Inscape Data... we used them on our towers. > >> > >> We sell them too ;-) > >> > >> Daniel White > >> 3-dB Networks > >> http://www.3dbnetworks.com > >> > >> > >> >-Original Message- > >> >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: > wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > >> >>>On > >> >Behalf Of Josh Luthman > >> >Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 6:26 PM > >> >To: WISPA General List > >> >Subject: [WISPA] Network tower cam > >> > > >> >We are interested in putting a camera up on a tower to get some > >> >"we're > >> >700 > >> >1337 4 u" feel. I do want a PoE/Ethernet one - no coax/analog > >> >>>cameras! > >> > > >> >Does anyone have suggestions? > >> > > >> >Josh Luthman > >> >Office: 937-552-2340 > >> >Direct: 937-552-2343 > >> >1100 Wayne St > >> >Suite 1337 > >> >Troy, OH 45373 > >> > > >> > >awo+IEVhY2ggdGltZSBwZW9wbGUgY29tcGxhaW4gYWJvdXQgdGhlIGxhY2sgb2YgaGln > >> >aC > >> >>>Bz > >> >cGVl > >> > >ZCBpbnRlcm5ldCBhY2Nlc3MgaXQgCj4gaXMgcXVpdGU
Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam
The inscape cameras are really nice, and worth every penny if someone needs a full featured camera. There are MANY low cost cameras. For example Intellinet (icintracom) has some inexpenseive ones also. But the inexpensive ones all share a common feature flaw Do they support MPEG4? Most of the inexpensive ones do not. That is the difference between a 300kbps requirement for full motion stream, and a 1.5mbps requirement for full motion stream. If bandwidth use is not an issue, then it doesn't matter. For example, if you only need to capturing a frame (mjpeg) every two seconds, its not an issue. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 10:48 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam > Look into Trendware they have some pretty decent low cost pretty decent > quality ones with good functionality. > > /Eje > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile > > -Original Message- > From: Josh Luthman > > Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:45:04 > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam > > > Well that means I'm still looking for a simple network camera =) > > If you're afraid to be targeted as one of those Myspace Men just shoot it > off list =P > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. > --- Henry Spencer > > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:38 PM, 3-dB Networks wrote: > >> Yeah they are not necessarily cheap lol. >> >> We used them as a security solution... not really a webcam for our >> customers >> >> Daniel White >> 3-dB Networks >> http://www.3dbnetworks.com >> >> >> >-Original Message- >> >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> >Behalf Of Josh Luthman >> >Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:33 PM >> >To: WISPA General List >> >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam >> > >> >Those look to be way more elaborate then our goal. We simply want >> >images (or possibly even video if it is flash) on our website. >> > >> >On 1/22/09, 3-dB Networks wrote: >> >> Our website is still under construction (I guess that's what we are >> >calling >> >> it) >> >> >> >> Check them out here: >> >> >> >> http://www.inscapedata.com/airgoggle.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 Josh Luthman >> >>>Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:04 PM >> >>>To: WISPA General List >> >>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam >> >>> >> >>>If I click IP Cameras on your products page I get 0 results on a >> >search >> >>>page :/ >> >>> >> >>>On 1/22/09, 3-dB Networks wrote: >> Inscape Data... we used them on our towers. >> >> We sell them too ;-) >> >> Daniel White >> 3-dB Networks >> http://www.3dbnetworks.com >> >> >> >-Original Message- >> >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >> >>>On >> >Behalf Of Josh Luthman >> >Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 6:26 PM >> >To: WISPA General List >> >Subject: [WISPA] Network tower cam >> > >> >We are interested in putting a camera up on a tower to get some >> >"we're >> >700 >> >1337 4 u" feel. I do want a PoE/Ethernet one - no coax/analog >> >>>cameras! >> > >> >Does anyone have suggestions? >> > >> >Josh Luthman >> >Office: 937-552-2340 >> >Direct: 937-552-2343 >> >1100 Wayne St >> >Suite 1337 >> >Troy, OH 45373 >> > >> >awo+IEVhY2ggdGltZSBwZW9wbGUgY29tcGxhaW4gYWJvdXQgdGhlIGxhY2sgb2YgaGln >> >aC >> >>>Bz >> >cGVl >> >ZCBpbnRlcm5ldCBhY2Nlc3MgaXQgCj4gaXMgcXVpdGUgZGVwbG9yYWJsZSBpbmRlZWQg >> >aW >> >>>Yg >> >dGhl >> >cmUgaXMgbm8gYWNjZXNzIHRocm91Z2ggZWl0aGVyIGRzbCBvciAKPiBjYWJsZSBwcm92 >> >aW >> >>>Rl >> >cnMg >> >YXZhaWxhYmxlIGluIHlvdXIgYXJlYS4KPiBIb3dldmVyLCBpZiBlaXRoZXIgb25lIG9m >> >IH >> >>>Ro >> >b3Nl >> >IHNlcnZpY2VzIGNhbiBiZSBvYnRhaW5lZCB0aHJvdWdoIHlvdXIgCj4gbG9jYWwgcGhv >> >bm >> >>>Ug >> >Y29t >> >cGFueSBvciBjYWJsZSBwcm92aWRlciBpdKGmcyBub3QgdmVyeSByZWFzb25hYmxlIHRv >> >IA >> >>>o+ >> >IGNv >> >bXBsYWluIGFuZCBleHBlY3QgY2FibGUgdG8gYmUgc3RydW5nIHRvIHlvdXIgaG9tZSBz >> >by >> >>>B5 >> >b3Ug >> >Y2FuIGVuam95IAo+IGhpZ2hlciBpbnRlcm5ldCBzcGVlZCByZWxhdGl2ZWx5IHRvIHdo >> >YX >> >>>Qg >> >RFNM >> >IGNhbiBwcmVzZW50bHkgb2ZmZXIgaW4gdGhlIAo+IFVTQSB3aGlsZSBzdGlsbCBjb21w >> >bG >> >>>Fp >> >bmlu >> >ZyBhYm91dCA1MCBkb2xsYXIgcGVyIG1vbnRoIHByaWNlIHRhZyBpbiBzcGl0ZSAKPiBv >> >Zi >> >>>B0 >> >aGUg >> >ZmFjdCB0aGF0IGl0IHdvdWxkIGNvc3QgdGVucyBvZiB0aG91c2FuZHMgb2YgZG9sbGFy >> >cy >> >>>Bv >> >ciBp >> >biBzb21lIAo+IGNhc2VzIGh1bmRyZWRzIG9mIHRob3VzYW5kcyBmb3IgY2
Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam
Look into Trendware they have some pretty decent low cost pretty decent quality ones with good functionality. /Eje Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: Josh Luthman Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:45:04 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam Well that means I'm still looking for a simple network camera =) If you're afraid to be targeted as one of those Myspace Men just shoot it off list =P Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:38 PM, 3-dB Networks wrote: > Yeah they are not necessarily cheap lol. > > We used them as a security solution... not really a webcam for our > customers > > Daniel White > 3-dB Networks > http://www.3dbnetworks.com > > > >-Original Message- > >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > >Behalf Of Josh Luthman > >Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:33 PM > >To: WISPA General List > >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam > > > >Those look to be way more elaborate then our goal. We simply want > >images (or possibly even video if it is flash) on our website. > > > >On 1/22/09, 3-dB Networks wrote: > >> Our website is still under construction (I guess that's what we are > >calling > >> it) > >> > >> Check them out here: > >> > >> http://www.inscapedata.com/airgoggle.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 Josh Luthman > >>>Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:04 PM > >>>To: WISPA General List > >>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam > >>> > >>>If I click IP Cameras on your products page I get 0 results on a > >search > >>>page :/ > >>> > >>>On 1/22/09, 3-dB Networks wrote: > Inscape Data... we used them on our towers. > > We sell them too ;-) > > Daniel White > 3-dB Networks > http://www.3dbnetworks.com > > > >-Original Message- > >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > >>>On > >Behalf Of Josh Luthman > >Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 6:26 PM > >To: WISPA General List > >Subject: [WISPA] Network tower cam > > > >We are interested in putting a camera up on a tower to get some > >"we're > >700 > >1337 4 u" feel. I do want a PoE/Ethernet one - no coax/analog > >>>cameras! > > > >Does anyone have suggestions? > > > >Josh Luthman > >Office: 937-552-2340 > >Direct: 937-552-2343 > >1100 Wayne St > >Suite 1337 > >Troy, OH 45373 > > > >awo+IEVhY2ggdGltZSBwZW9wbGUgY29tcGxhaW4gYWJvdXQgdGhlIGxhY2sgb2YgaGln > >aC > >>>Bz > >cGVl > >ZCBpbnRlcm5ldCBhY2Nlc3MgaXQgCj4gaXMgcXVpdGUgZGVwbG9yYWJsZSBpbmRlZWQg > >aW > >>>Yg > >dGhl > >cmUgaXMgbm8gYWNjZXNzIHRocm91Z2ggZWl0aGVyIGRzbCBvciAKPiBjYWJsZSBwcm92 > >aW > >>>Rl > >cnMg > >YXZhaWxhYmxlIGluIHlvdXIgYXJlYS4KPiBIb3dldmVyLCBpZiBlaXRoZXIgb25lIG9m > >IH > >>>Ro > >b3Nl > >IHNlcnZpY2VzIGNhbiBiZSBvYnRhaW5lZCB0aHJvdWdoIHlvdXIgCj4gbG9jYWwgcGhv > >bm > >>>Ug > >Y29t > >cGFueSBvciBjYWJsZSBwcm92aWRlciBpdKGmcyBub3QgdmVyeSByZWFzb25hYmxlIHRv > >IA > >>>o+ > >IGNv > >bXBsYWluIGFuZCBleHBlY3QgY2FibGUgdG8gYmUgc3RydW5nIHRvIHlvdXIgaG9tZSBz > >by > >>>B5 > >b3Ug > >Y2FuIGVuam95IAo+IGhpZ2hlciBpbnRlcm5ldCBzcGVlZCByZWxhdGl2ZWx5IHRvIHdo > >YX > >>>Qg > >RFNM > >IGNhbiBwcmVzZW50bHkgb2ZmZXIgaW4gdGhlIAo+IFVTQSB3aGlsZSBzdGlsbCBjb21w > >bG > >>>Fp > >bmlu > >ZyBhYm91dCA1MCBkb2xsYXIgcGVyIG1vbnRoIHByaWNlIHRhZyBpbiBzcGl0ZSAKPiBv > >Zi > >>>B0 > >aGUg > >ZmFjdCB0aGF0IGl0IHdvdWxkIGNvc3QgdGVucyBvZiB0aG91c2FuZHMgb2YgZG9sbGFy > >cy > >>>Bv > >ciBp > >biBzb21lIAo+IGNhc2VzIGh1bmRyZWRzIG9mIHRob3VzYW5kcyBmb3IgY2FibGUgY29t > >cG > >>>Fu > >aWVz > >IHRvIGRvIGl0IGluIG1hbnkgcGxhY2VzLiAKPiBGb3IgaG93IGxvbmcgd291bGQgeW91 > >ci > >>>Bt > >b250 > >aGx5IHJhdGUgb2YgNTAgVVNEIHRha2UgdG8gZGVmcmF5IHRoZSBjb3N0IG9mIAo+IGlu > >c3 > >>>Rh > >bGxh > >dGlvbiBmb3IgY2FibGUgY29tcGFuaWVzPyBUaGV5oaZyZSBpbiBidXNpbmVzcyBvZiBn > >ZW > >>>5l > >cmF0 > >aW5nIAo+IHJldmVudWUgZm9yIHRoZWlyIHNoYXJlaG9sZGVycyBhbmQgYXJlIGluZGVl > >ZC > >>>Bw > >cml2 > >YXRlIGVudGVycHJpc2VzIHJhdGhlciAKPiB0aGFuIGNoYXJpdGllcyBhbmQgdGhlaXIg > >cH > >>>Jp > >bWFy > >eSBvYmxpZ2F0aW9uIGlzIHRvIGdlbmVyYXRlIHJldHVybiBvbiAKPiBzaGFyZWhvbGRl > >cq > >>>Gm > >cyBp > >bnZlc3RtZW50Lgo+IEluIHRoZW9yeSwgQURTTDIgKHVwIHRvIDI0IG1icykgdGhyb3Vn > >aC > >>>Bj > >b3Bw > >ZXIgbGluZXMgaXMgcGVyZmVjdGx5IGFibGUgdG8gCj4gbWF0Y2ggYW5kIGV2ZW4gZXhj > >ZW > >>>Vk > >IHR5 > >cGljYWwgMTAgb3IgMTUgbWJzIHBsYW5zIHRoYXQgYXJlIHVzdWFsbHkgb2ZmZXJlZCAK > >Pi > >>>Bi > >eSBj > >YWJsZSBjb21wYW5pZXMuIEluIHJlYWxpdHkgZHNsIHNpZ25
Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam
Well that means I'm still looking for a simple network camera =) If you're afraid to be targeted as one of those Myspace Men just shoot it off list =P Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:38 PM, 3-dB Networks wrote: > Yeah they are not necessarily cheap lol. > > We used them as a security solution... not really a webcam for our > customers > > Daniel White > 3-dB Networks > http://www.3dbnetworks.com > > > >-Original Message- > >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > >Behalf Of Josh Luthman > >Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:33 PM > >To: WISPA General List > >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam > > > >Those look to be way more elaborate then our goal. We simply want > >images (or possibly even video if it is flash) on our website. > > > >On 1/22/09, 3-dB Networks wrote: > >> Our website is still under construction (I guess that's what we are > >calling > >> it) > >> > >> Check them out here: > >> > >> http://www.inscapedata.com/airgoggle.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 Josh Luthman > >>>Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:04 PM > >>>To: WISPA General List > >>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam > >>> > >>>If I click IP Cameras on your products page I get 0 results on a > >search > >>>page :/ > >>> > >>>On 1/22/09, 3-dB Networks wrote: > Inscape Data... we used them on our towers. > > We sell them too ;-) > > Daniel White > 3-dB Networks > http://www.3dbnetworks.com > > > >-Original Message- > >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > >>>On > >Behalf Of Josh Luthman > >Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 6:26 PM > >To: WISPA General List > >Subject: [WISPA] Network tower cam > > > >We are interested in putting a camera up on a tower to get some > >"we're > >700 > >1337 4 u" feel. I do want a PoE/Ethernet one - no coax/analog > >>>cameras! > > > >Does anyone have suggestions? > > > >Josh Luthman > >Office: 937-552-2340 > >Direct: 937-552-2343 > >1100 Wayne St > >Suite 1337 > >Troy, OH 45373 > > > >awo+IEVhY2ggdGltZSBwZW9wbGUgY29tcGxhaW4gYWJvdXQgdGhlIGxhY2sgb2YgaGln > >aC > >>>Bz > >cGVl > >ZCBpbnRlcm5ldCBhY2Nlc3MgaXQgCj4gaXMgcXVpdGUgZGVwbG9yYWJsZSBpbmRlZWQg > >aW > >>>Yg > >dGhl > >cmUgaXMgbm8gYWNjZXNzIHRocm91Z2ggZWl0aGVyIGRzbCBvciAKPiBjYWJsZSBwcm92 > >aW > >>>Rl > >cnMg > >YXZhaWxhYmxlIGluIHlvdXIgYXJlYS4KPiBIb3dldmVyLCBpZiBlaXRoZXIgb25lIG9m > >IH > >>>Ro > >b3Nl > >IHNlcnZpY2VzIGNhbiBiZSBvYnRhaW5lZCB0aHJvdWdoIHlvdXIgCj4gbG9jYWwgcGhv > >bm > >>>Ug > >Y29t > >cGFueSBvciBjYWJsZSBwcm92aWRlciBpdKGmcyBub3QgdmVyeSByZWFzb25hYmxlIHRv > >IA > >>>o+ > >IGNv > >bXBsYWluIGFuZCBleHBlY3QgY2FibGUgdG8gYmUgc3RydW5nIHRvIHlvdXIgaG9tZSBz > >by > >>>B5 > >b3Ug > >Y2FuIGVuam95IAo+IGhpZ2hlciBpbnRlcm5ldCBzcGVlZCByZWxhdGl2ZWx5IHRvIHdo > >YX > >>>Qg > >RFNM > >IGNhbiBwcmVzZW50bHkgb2ZmZXIgaW4gdGhlIAo+IFVTQSB3aGlsZSBzdGlsbCBjb21w > >bG > >>>Fp > >bmlu > >ZyBhYm91dCA1MCBkb2xsYXIgcGVyIG1vbnRoIHByaWNlIHRhZyBpbiBzcGl0ZSAKPiBv > >Zi > >>>B0 > >aGUg > >ZmFjdCB0aGF0IGl0IHdvdWxkIGNvc3QgdGVucyBvZiB0aG91c2FuZHMgb2YgZG9sbGFy > >cy > >>>Bv > >ciBp > >biBzb21lIAo+IGNhc2VzIGh1bmRyZWRzIG9mIHRob3VzYW5kcyBmb3IgY2FibGUgY29t > >cG > >>>Fu > >aWVz > >IHRvIGRvIGl0IGluIG1hbnkgcGxhY2VzLiAKPiBGb3IgaG93IGxvbmcgd291bGQgeW91 > >ci > >>>Bt > >b250 > >aGx5IHJhdGUgb2YgNTAgVVNEIHRha2UgdG8gZGVmcmF5IHRoZSBjb3N0IG9mIAo+IGlu > >c3 > >>>Rh > >bGxh > >dGlvbiBmb3IgY2FibGUgY29tcGFuaWVzPyBUaGV5oaZyZSBpbiBidXNpbmVzcyBvZiBn > >ZW > >>>5l > >cmF0 > >aW5nIAo+IHJldmVudWUgZm9yIHRoZWlyIHNoYXJlaG9sZGVycyBhbmQgYXJlIGluZGVl > >ZC > >>>Bw > >cml2 > >YXRlIGVudGVycHJpc2VzIHJhdGhlciAKPiB0aGFuIGNoYXJpdGllcyBhbmQgdGhlaXIg > >cH > >>>Jp > >bWFy > >eSBvYmxpZ2F0aW9uIGlzIHRvIGdlbmVyYXRlIHJldHVybiBvbiAKPiBzaGFyZWhvbGRl > >cq > >>>Gm > >cyBp > >bnZlc3RtZW50Lgo+IEluIHRoZW9yeSwgQURTTDIgKHVwIHRvIDI0IG1icykgdGhyb3Vn > >aC > >>>Bj > >b3Bw > >ZXIgbGluZXMgaXMgcGVyZmVjdGx5IGFibGUgdG8gCj4gbWF0Y2ggYW5kIGV2ZW4gZXhj > >ZW > >>>Vk > >IHR5 > >cGljYWwgMTAgb3IgMTUgbWJzIHBsYW5zIHRoYXQgYXJlIHVzdWFsbHkgb2ZmZXJlZCAK > >Pi > >>>Bi > >eSBj > >YWJsZSBjb21wYW5pZXMuIEluIHJlYWxpdHkgZHNsIHNpZ25hbCBpcyBzZW5zaXRpdmUg > >YW > >>>5k > >IHRo > >ZSBsb25nZXIgdGhlIAo+IGRpc3RhbmNlIGZyb20gdGVsLiBjby4gbmV0d29yayBjZW50 > >ZX > >>>Ig > >KGRz > >bGFtKSB0aGUgc2xvd2VyIGl0IGJlY29tZXMuIEFEU0wyIAo+IGlzIGEgdHlwZSBvZiB0 > >ZW > >>>No > >bm9s > >b2d5IHdoaWNoIGlzIHF1aXRlIHBvcHVsYXIgaW4
Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam
Yeah they are not necessarily cheap lol. We used them as a security solution... not really a webcam for our customers Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com >-Original Message- >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >Behalf Of Josh Luthman >Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:33 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam > >Those look to be way more elaborate then our goal. We simply want >images (or possibly even video if it is flash) on our website. > >On 1/22/09, 3-dB Networks wrote: >> Our website is still under construction (I guess that's what we are >calling >> it) >> >> Check them out here: >> >> http://www.inscapedata.com/airgoggle.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 Josh Luthman >>>Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:04 PM >>>To: WISPA General List >>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam >>> >>>If I click IP Cameras on your products page I get 0 results on a >search >>>page :/ >>> >>>On 1/22/09, 3-dB Networks wrote: Inscape Data... we used them on our towers. We sell them too ;-) Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com >-Original Message- >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >>>On >Behalf Of Josh Luthman >Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 6:26 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: [WISPA] Network tower cam > >We are interested in putting a camera up on a tower to get some >"we're >700 >1337 4 u" feel. I do want a PoE/Ethernet one - no coax/analog >>>cameras! > >Does anyone have suggestions? > >Josh Luthman >Office: 937-552-2340 >Direct: 937-552-2343 >1100 Wayne St >Suite 1337 >Troy, OH 45373 > >awo+IEVhY2ggdGltZSBwZW9wbGUgY29tcGxhaW4gYWJvdXQgdGhlIGxhY2sgb2YgaGln >aC >>>Bz >cGVl >ZCBpbnRlcm5ldCBhY2Nlc3MgaXQgCj4gaXMgcXVpdGUgZGVwbG9yYWJsZSBpbmRlZWQg >aW >>>Yg >dGhl >cmUgaXMgbm8gYWNjZXNzIHRocm91Z2ggZWl0aGVyIGRzbCBvciAKPiBjYWJsZSBwcm92 >aW >>>Rl >cnMg >YXZhaWxhYmxlIGluIHlvdXIgYXJlYS4KPiBIb3dldmVyLCBpZiBlaXRoZXIgb25lIG9m >IH >>>Ro >b3Nl >IHNlcnZpY2VzIGNhbiBiZSBvYnRhaW5lZCB0aHJvdWdoIHlvdXIgCj4gbG9jYWwgcGhv >bm >>>Ug >Y29t >cGFueSBvciBjYWJsZSBwcm92aWRlciBpdKGmcyBub3QgdmVyeSByZWFzb25hYmxlIHRv >IA >>>o+ >IGNv >bXBsYWluIGFuZCBleHBlY3QgY2FibGUgdG8gYmUgc3RydW5nIHRvIHlvdXIgaG9tZSBz >by >>>B5 >b3Ug >Y2FuIGVuam95IAo+IGhpZ2hlciBpbnRlcm5ldCBzcGVlZCByZWxhdGl2ZWx5IHRvIHdo >YX >>>Qg >RFNM >IGNhbiBwcmVzZW50bHkgb2ZmZXIgaW4gdGhlIAo+IFVTQSB3aGlsZSBzdGlsbCBjb21w >bG >>>Fp >bmlu >ZyBhYm91dCA1MCBkb2xsYXIgcGVyIG1vbnRoIHByaWNlIHRhZyBpbiBzcGl0ZSAKPiBv >Zi >>>B0 >aGUg >ZmFjdCB0aGF0IGl0IHdvdWxkIGNvc3QgdGVucyBvZiB0aG91c2FuZHMgb2YgZG9sbGFy >cy >>>Bv >ciBp >biBzb21lIAo+IGNhc2VzIGh1bmRyZWRzIG9mIHRob3VzYW5kcyBmb3IgY2FibGUgY29t >cG >>>Fu >aWVz >IHRvIGRvIGl0IGluIG1hbnkgcGxhY2VzLiAKPiBGb3IgaG93IGxvbmcgd291bGQgeW91 >ci >>>Bt >b250 >aGx5IHJhdGUgb2YgNTAgVVNEIHRha2UgdG8gZGVmcmF5IHRoZSBjb3N0IG9mIAo+IGlu >c3 >>>Rh >bGxh >dGlvbiBmb3IgY2FibGUgY29tcGFuaWVzPyBUaGV5oaZyZSBpbiBidXNpbmVzcyBvZiBn >ZW >>>5l >cmF0 >aW5nIAo+IHJldmVudWUgZm9yIHRoZWlyIHNoYXJlaG9sZGVycyBhbmQgYXJlIGluZGVl >ZC >>>Bw >cml2 >YXRlIGVudGVycHJpc2VzIHJhdGhlciAKPiB0aGFuIGNoYXJpdGllcyBhbmQgdGhlaXIg >cH >>>Jp >bWFy >eSBvYmxpZ2F0aW9uIGlzIHRvIGdlbmVyYXRlIHJldHVybiBvbiAKPiBzaGFyZWhvbGRl >cq >>>Gm >cyBp >bnZlc3RtZW50Lgo+IEluIHRoZW9yeSwgQURTTDIgKHVwIHRvIDI0IG1icykgdGhyb3Vn >aC >>>Bj >b3Bw >ZXIgbGluZXMgaXMgcGVyZmVjdGx5IGFibGUgdG8gCj4gbWF0Y2ggYW5kIGV2ZW4gZXhj >ZW >>>Vk >IHR5 >cGljYWwgMTAgb3IgMTUgbWJzIHBsYW5zIHRoYXQgYXJlIHVzdWFsbHkgb2ZmZXJlZCAK >Pi >>>Bi >eSBj >YWJsZSBjb21wYW5pZXMuIEluIHJlYWxpdHkgZHNsIHNpZ25hbCBpcyBzZW5zaXRpdmUg >YW >>>5k >IHRo >ZSBsb25nZXIgdGhlIAo+IGRpc3RhbmNlIGZyb20gdGVsLiBjby4gbmV0d29yayBjZW50 >ZX >>>Ig >KGRz >bGFtKSB0aGUgc2xvd2VyIGl0IGJlY29tZXMuIEFEU0wyIAo+IGlzIGEgdHlwZSBvZiB0 >ZW >>>No >bm9s >b2d5IHdoaWNoIGlzIHF1aXRlIHBvcHVsYXIgaW4gU291dGggS29yZWEuIEl0oaZzIG5v >dC >>>AK >PiB0 >cnVlIHRoYXQgZXZlcnlvbmUgaW4gS29yZWEgaGFzIGZpYmVybGlua3MgdG8gdGhlaXIg >aG >>>9t >ZXMu >IER1ZSB0byAKPiBwb3B1bGF0aW9uIGRlbnNpdHkgaXQgaXMgd2h5IHVubGlrZSBpbiBB >bW >>>Vy >aWNh >IEFEU0wyIGRvZXMgd29yayB2ZXJ5IHdlbGwgCj4gYW5kIGlzIGEgcHJhY3RpY2FsIHNv >bH >>>V0 >aW9u >IGluIHRoYXQgY291bnRyeS4KPiBPZiBjb3Vyc2UsIGl0IGlzIGluZXhjdXNhYmxlIGFu >ZC >>>Bt >dXN0 >IGJlIG91dGxhd2VkIGF0IHN0YXRlIGFuZCBmZWRlcmFsIAo+IGxldmVsIGZvciB0ZWxl >Y2 >>>9t >IGFu >ZCBjYWJsZSBjb21wYW5pZXMgdG8gc3R5bWllIGFuZCBpbnRlcmZlcmUgd2l0aCBsb2Nh >bC >>>AK >PiBp >bml0aWF0aXZlcyB3aGVyZXZlciBhbmQgd2hlbmV2ZXIgbG9jYWwgY29tbXVuaXRpZXMg >ZG >>>Vj >aWRl >IHRvIGltcGxlbWVudCAKPiBmaWJlciB
Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam
Those look to be way more elaborate then our goal. We simply want images (or possibly even video if it is flash) on our website. On 1/22/09, 3-dB Networks wrote: > Our website is still under construction (I guess that's what we are calling > it) > > Check them out here: > > http://www.inscapedata.com/airgoggle.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 Josh Luthman >>Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:04 PM >>To: WISPA General List >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam >> >>If I click IP Cameras on your products page I get 0 results on a search >>page :/ >> >>On 1/22/09, 3-dB Networks wrote: >>> Inscape Data... we used them on our towers. >>> >>> We sell them too ;-) >>> >>> Daniel White >>> 3-dB Networks >>> http://www.3dbnetworks.com >>> >>> -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >>On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 6:26 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Network tower cam We are interested in putting a camera up on a tower to get some "we're 700 1337 4 u" feel. I do want a PoE/Ethernet one - no coax/analog >>cameras! Does anyone have suggestions? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 awo+IEVhY2ggdGltZSBwZW9wbGUgY29tcGxhaW4gYWJvdXQgdGhlIGxhY2sgb2YgaGlnaC >>Bz cGVl ZCBpbnRlcm5ldCBhY2Nlc3MgaXQgCj4gaXMgcXVpdGUgZGVwbG9yYWJsZSBpbmRlZWQgaW >>Yg dGhl cmUgaXMgbm8gYWNjZXNzIHRocm91Z2ggZWl0aGVyIGRzbCBvciAKPiBjYWJsZSBwcm92aW >>Rl cnMg YXZhaWxhYmxlIGluIHlvdXIgYXJlYS4KPiBIb3dldmVyLCBpZiBlaXRoZXIgb25lIG9mIH >>Ro b3Nl IHNlcnZpY2VzIGNhbiBiZSBvYnRhaW5lZCB0aHJvdWdoIHlvdXIgCj4gbG9jYWwgcGhvbm >>Ug Y29t cGFueSBvciBjYWJsZSBwcm92aWRlciBpdKGmcyBub3QgdmVyeSByZWFzb25hYmxlIHRvIA >>o+ IGNv bXBsYWluIGFuZCBleHBlY3QgY2FibGUgdG8gYmUgc3RydW5nIHRvIHlvdXIgaG9tZSBzby >>B5 b3Ug Y2FuIGVuam95IAo+IGhpZ2hlciBpbnRlcm5ldCBzcGVlZCByZWxhdGl2ZWx5IHRvIHdoYX >>Qg RFNM IGNhbiBwcmVzZW50bHkgb2ZmZXIgaW4gdGhlIAo+IFVTQSB3aGlsZSBzdGlsbCBjb21wbG >>Fp bmlu ZyBhYm91dCA1MCBkb2xsYXIgcGVyIG1vbnRoIHByaWNlIHRhZyBpbiBzcGl0ZSAKPiBvZi >>B0 aGUg ZmFjdCB0aGF0IGl0IHdvdWxkIGNvc3QgdGVucyBvZiB0aG91c2FuZHMgb2YgZG9sbGFycy >>Bv ciBp biBzb21lIAo+IGNhc2VzIGh1bmRyZWRzIG9mIHRob3VzYW5kcyBmb3IgY2FibGUgY29tcG >>Fu aWVz IHRvIGRvIGl0IGluIG1hbnkgcGxhY2VzLiAKPiBGb3IgaG93IGxvbmcgd291bGQgeW91ci >>Bt b250 aGx5IHJhdGUgb2YgNTAgVVNEIHRha2UgdG8gZGVmcmF5IHRoZSBjb3N0IG9mIAo+IGluc3 >>Rh bGxh dGlvbiBmb3IgY2FibGUgY29tcGFuaWVzPyBUaGV5oaZyZSBpbiBidXNpbmVzcyBvZiBnZW >>5l cmF0 aW5nIAo+IHJldmVudWUgZm9yIHRoZWlyIHNoYXJlaG9sZGVycyBhbmQgYXJlIGluZGVlZC >>Bw cml2 YXRlIGVudGVycHJpc2VzIHJhdGhlciAKPiB0aGFuIGNoYXJpdGllcyBhbmQgdGhlaXIgcH >>Jp bWFy eSBvYmxpZ2F0aW9uIGlzIHRvIGdlbmVyYXRlIHJldHVybiBvbiAKPiBzaGFyZWhvbGRlcq >>Gm cyBp bnZlc3RtZW50Lgo+IEluIHRoZW9yeSwgQURTTDIgKHVwIHRvIDI0IG1icykgdGhyb3VnaC >>Bj b3Bw ZXIgbGluZXMgaXMgcGVyZmVjdGx5IGFibGUgdG8gCj4gbWF0Y2ggYW5kIGV2ZW4gZXhjZW >>Vk IHR5 cGljYWwgMTAgb3IgMTUgbWJzIHBsYW5zIHRoYXQgYXJlIHVzdWFsbHkgb2ZmZXJlZCAKPi >>Bi eSBj YWJsZSBjb21wYW5pZXMuIEluIHJlYWxpdHkgZHNsIHNpZ25hbCBpcyBzZW5zaXRpdmUgYW >>5k IHRo ZSBsb25nZXIgdGhlIAo+IGRpc3RhbmNlIGZyb20gdGVsLiBjby4gbmV0d29yayBjZW50ZX >>Ig KGRz bGFtKSB0aGUgc2xvd2VyIGl0IGJlY29tZXMuIEFEU0wyIAo+IGlzIGEgdHlwZSBvZiB0ZW >>No bm9s b2d5IHdoaWNoIGlzIHF1aXRlIHBvcHVsYXIgaW4gU291dGggS29yZWEuIEl0oaZzIG5vdC >>AK PiB0 cnVlIHRoYXQgZXZlcnlvbmUgaW4gS29yZWEgaGFzIGZpYmVybGlua3MgdG8gdGhlaXIgaG >>9t ZXMu IER1ZSB0byAKPiBwb3B1bGF0aW9uIGRlbnNpdHkgaXQgaXMgd2h5IHVubGlrZSBpbiBBbW >>Vy aWNh IEFEU0wyIGRvZXMgd29yayB2ZXJ5IHdlbGwgCj4gYW5kIGlzIGEgcHJhY3RpY2FsIHNvbH >>V0 aW9u IGluIHRoYXQgY291bnRyeS4KPiBPZiBjb3Vyc2UsIGl0IGlzIGluZXhjdXNhYmxlIGFuZC >>Bt dXN0 IGJlIG91dGxhd2VkIGF0IHN0YXRlIGFuZCBmZWRlcmFsIAo+IGxldmVsIGZvciB0ZWxlY2 >>9t IGFu ZCBjYWJsZSBjb21wYW5pZXMgdG8gc3R5bWllIGFuZCBpbnRlcmZlcmUgd2l0aCBsb2NhbC >>AK PiBp bml0aWF0aXZlcyB3aGVyZXZlciBhbmQgd2hlbmV2ZXIgbG9jYWwgY29tbXVuaXRpZXMgZG >>Vj aWRl IHRvIGltcGxlbWVudCAKPiBmaWJlciBvciBhbnkgb3RoZXIgYnJvYWRiYW5kIHRlY2hub2 >>xv Z3kg YXMgdGhleSBzZWUgZml0IGZvciB0aGVpciAKPiByZXNpZGVudHMuIEl0IGlzIGV2ZW4gbW >>9y ZSB1 bmNvbnNjaW9uYWJsZSB0byBpbnRlcmZlcmUgd2hlbiBubyBzZXJ2aWNlIGlzIAo+IGF2YW >>ls YWJs ZSBmcm9tIHRob3NlIGNvbXBhbmllcy4KPiBJbiBtYW55IGluc3RhbmNlcyB3aGVuIHBlb3 >>Bs ZSBj b21wYXJlIGJyb2FkYmFuZCBhdmFpbGFiaWxpdHkgaW4gSmFwYW4sIAo+IFNvdXRoIEtvcm >>Vh IGFu ZCBFdXJvcGUgdGhlIGZhY3QgdGhhdCBwZW9wbGUgaW4gdGhlIGZpcnN0IHR3byBjb3VudH >>Jp ZXMg Cj4gbWVudGlvbmVkIGFib3ZlIG92ZXJ3aGVsbWluZ2x5IHRlbmQgdG8gcmVzaWRlIGluIG >>Fw YXJ0 bWVudHMgcmF0aGVyIHRoYW4gaW4gCj4gcHJpdmF0
Re: [WISPA] White Cable Available
Bit less then that :) On 1/22/09, Brian Rohrbacher wrote: > I currently pay $105.99 per 1000 > What kind of cost are you looking at for "low cost"? > > Brian > > Jeff Ehman wrote: >> We have just partnered closely with a manufacturer that will have beige >> and white available. Low cost un-shielded UV, CMX, PVC jacket. >> >> -Jeff >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Tom Fadgen >> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 11:51 AM >> To: 'WISPA General List' >> Subject: [WISPA] White Cable Available >> >> >> I have a source for white outdoor cable. I had a Manufacturer/Distributor >> make some special cable. 1000' is about the same price as General Cable >> 500' >> purchased from Home Depot. Hit me offlist for the contact info. I believe >> Travis buys for the same source. >> >> >> >> >> 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/ >> >> This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to >> which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, >> confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the >> reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or >> agent responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient, >> you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of >> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >> communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at >> 630-344-1586. >> >> >> >> 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 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer 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] White Cable Available
I currently pay $105.99 per 1000 What kind of cost are you looking at for "low cost"? Brian Jeff Ehman wrote: > We have just partnered closely with a manufacturer that will have beige and > white available. Low cost un-shielded UV, CMX, PVC jacket. > > -Jeff > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Tom Fadgen > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 11:51 AM > To: 'WISPA General List' > Subject: [WISPA] White Cable Available > > > I have a source for white outdoor cable. I had a Manufacturer/Distributor > make some special cable. 1000' is about the same price as General Cable 500' > purchased from Home Depot. Hit me offlist for the contact info. I believe > Travis buys for the same source. > > > > > 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/ > > This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, > confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent > responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this > communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication > in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at 630-344-1586. > > > > 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] Network tower cam
Our website is still under construction (I guess that's what we are calling it) Check them out here: http://www.inscapedata.com/airgoggle.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 Josh Luthman >Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:04 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam > >If I click IP Cameras on your products page I get 0 results on a search >page :/ > >On 1/22/09, 3-dB Networks wrote: >> Inscape Data... we used them on our towers. >> >> We sell them too ;-) >> >> Daniel White >> 3-dB Networks >> http://www.3dbnetworks.com >> >> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >On >>>Behalf Of Josh Luthman >>>Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 6:26 PM >>>To: WISPA General List >>>Subject: [WISPA] Network tower cam >>> >>>We are interested in putting a camera up on a tower to get some "we're >>>700 >>>1337 4 u" feel. I do want a PoE/Ethernet one - no coax/analog >cameras! >>> >>>Does anyone have suggestions? >>> >>>Josh Luthman >>>Office: 937-552-2340 >>>Direct: 937-552-2343 >>>1100 Wayne St >>>Suite 1337 >>>Troy, OH 45373 >>> >>>awo+IEVhY2ggdGltZSBwZW9wbGUgY29tcGxhaW4gYWJvdXQgdGhlIGxhY2sgb2YgaGlnaC >Bz >>>cGVl >>>ZCBpbnRlcm5ldCBhY2Nlc3MgaXQgCj4gaXMgcXVpdGUgZGVwbG9yYWJsZSBpbmRlZWQgaW >Yg >>>dGhl >>>cmUgaXMgbm8gYWNjZXNzIHRocm91Z2ggZWl0aGVyIGRzbCBvciAKPiBjYWJsZSBwcm92aW >Rl >>>cnMg >>>YXZhaWxhYmxlIGluIHlvdXIgYXJlYS4KPiBIb3dldmVyLCBpZiBlaXRoZXIgb25lIG9mIH >Ro >>>b3Nl >>>IHNlcnZpY2VzIGNhbiBiZSBvYnRhaW5lZCB0aHJvdWdoIHlvdXIgCj4gbG9jYWwgcGhvbm >Ug >>>Y29t >>>cGFueSBvciBjYWJsZSBwcm92aWRlciBpdKGmcyBub3QgdmVyeSByZWFzb25hYmxlIHRvIA >o+ >>>IGNv >>>bXBsYWluIGFuZCBleHBlY3QgY2FibGUgdG8gYmUgc3RydW5nIHRvIHlvdXIgaG9tZSBzby >B5 >>>b3Ug >>>Y2FuIGVuam95IAo+IGhpZ2hlciBpbnRlcm5ldCBzcGVlZCByZWxhdGl2ZWx5IHRvIHdoYX >Qg >>>RFNM >>>IGNhbiBwcmVzZW50bHkgb2ZmZXIgaW4gdGhlIAo+IFVTQSB3aGlsZSBzdGlsbCBjb21wbG >Fp >>>bmlu >>>ZyBhYm91dCA1MCBkb2xsYXIgcGVyIG1vbnRoIHByaWNlIHRhZyBpbiBzcGl0ZSAKPiBvZi >B0 >>>aGUg >>>ZmFjdCB0aGF0IGl0IHdvdWxkIGNvc3QgdGVucyBvZiB0aG91c2FuZHMgb2YgZG9sbGFycy >Bv >>>ciBp >>>biBzb21lIAo+IGNhc2VzIGh1bmRyZWRzIG9mIHRob3VzYW5kcyBmb3IgY2FibGUgY29tcG >Fu >>>aWVz >>>IHRvIGRvIGl0IGluIG1hbnkgcGxhY2VzLiAKPiBGb3IgaG93IGxvbmcgd291bGQgeW91ci >Bt >>>b250 >>>aGx5IHJhdGUgb2YgNTAgVVNEIHRha2UgdG8gZGVmcmF5IHRoZSBjb3N0IG9mIAo+IGluc3 >Rh >>>bGxh >>>dGlvbiBmb3IgY2FibGUgY29tcGFuaWVzPyBUaGV5oaZyZSBpbiBidXNpbmVzcyBvZiBnZW >5l >>>cmF0 >>>aW5nIAo+IHJldmVudWUgZm9yIHRoZWlyIHNoYXJlaG9sZGVycyBhbmQgYXJlIGluZGVlZC >Bw >>>cml2 >>>YXRlIGVudGVycHJpc2VzIHJhdGhlciAKPiB0aGFuIGNoYXJpdGllcyBhbmQgdGhlaXIgcH >Jp >>>bWFy >>>eSBvYmxpZ2F0aW9uIGlzIHRvIGdlbmVyYXRlIHJldHVybiBvbiAKPiBzaGFyZWhvbGRlcq >Gm >>>cyBp >>>bnZlc3RtZW50Lgo+IEluIHRoZW9yeSwgQURTTDIgKHVwIHRvIDI0IG1icykgdGhyb3VnaC >Bj >>>b3Bw >>>ZXIgbGluZXMgaXMgcGVyZmVjdGx5IGFibGUgdG8gCj4gbWF0Y2ggYW5kIGV2ZW4gZXhjZW >Vk >>>IHR5 >>>cGljYWwgMTAgb3IgMTUgbWJzIHBsYW5zIHRoYXQgYXJlIHVzdWFsbHkgb2ZmZXJlZCAKPi >Bi >>>eSBj >>>YWJsZSBjb21wYW5pZXMuIEluIHJlYWxpdHkgZHNsIHNpZ25hbCBpcyBzZW5zaXRpdmUgYW >5k >>>IHRo >>>ZSBsb25nZXIgdGhlIAo+IGRpc3RhbmNlIGZyb20gdGVsLiBjby4gbmV0d29yayBjZW50ZX >Ig >>>KGRz >>>bGFtKSB0aGUgc2xvd2VyIGl0IGJlY29tZXMuIEFEU0wyIAo+IGlzIGEgdHlwZSBvZiB0ZW >No >>>bm9s >>>b2d5IHdoaWNoIGlzIHF1aXRlIHBvcHVsYXIgaW4gU291dGggS29yZWEuIEl0oaZzIG5vdC >AK >>>PiB0 >>>cnVlIHRoYXQgZXZlcnlvbmUgaW4gS29yZWEgaGFzIGZpYmVybGlua3MgdG8gdGhlaXIgaG >9t >>>ZXMu >>>IER1ZSB0byAKPiBwb3B1bGF0aW9uIGRlbnNpdHkgaXQgaXMgd2h5IHVubGlrZSBpbiBBbW >Vy >>>aWNh >>>IEFEU0wyIGRvZXMgd29yayB2ZXJ5IHdlbGwgCj4gYW5kIGlzIGEgcHJhY3RpY2FsIHNvbH >V0 >>>aW9u >>>IGluIHRoYXQgY291bnRyeS4KPiBPZiBjb3Vyc2UsIGl0IGlzIGluZXhjdXNhYmxlIGFuZC >Bt >>>dXN0 >>>IGJlIG91dGxhd2VkIGF0IHN0YXRlIGFuZCBmZWRlcmFsIAo+IGxldmVsIGZvciB0ZWxlY2 >9t >>>IGFu >>>ZCBjYWJsZSBjb21wYW5pZXMgdG8gc3R5bWllIGFuZCBpbnRlcmZlcmUgd2l0aCBsb2NhbC >AK >>>PiBp >>>bml0aWF0aXZlcyB3aGVyZXZlciBhbmQgd2hlbmV2ZXIgbG9jYWwgY29tbXVuaXRpZXMgZG >Vj >>>aWRl >>>IHRvIGltcGxlbWVudCAKPiBmaWJlciBvciBhbnkgb3RoZXIgYnJvYWRiYW5kIHRlY2hub2 >xv >>>Z3kg >>>YXMgdGhleSBzZWUgZml0IGZvciB0aGVpciAKPiByZXNpZGVudHMuIEl0IGlzIGV2ZW4gbW >9y >>>ZSB1 >>>bmNvbnNjaW9uYWJsZSB0byBpbnRlcmZlcmUgd2hlbiBubyBzZXJ2aWNlIGlzIAo+IGF2YW >ls >>>YWJs >>>ZSBmcm9tIHRob3NlIGNvbXBhbmllcy4KPiBJbiBtYW55IGluc3RhbmNlcyB3aGVuIHBlb3 >Bs >>>ZSBj >>>b21wYXJlIGJyb2FkYmFuZCBhdmFpbGFiaWxpdHkgaW4gSmFwYW4sIAo+IFNvdXRoIEtvcm >Vh >>>IGFu >>>ZCBFdXJvcGUgdGhlIGZhY3QgdGhhdCBwZW9wbGUgaW4gdGhlIGZpcnN0IHR3byBjb3VudH >Jp >>>ZXMg >>>Cj4gbWVudGlvbmVkIGFib3ZlIG92ZXJ3aGVsbWluZ2x5IHRlbmQgdG8gcmVzaWRlIGluIG >Fw >>>YXJ0 >>>bWVudHMgcmF0aGVyIHRoYW4gaW4gCj4gcHJpdmF0ZSBob21lcyBkaXNwZXJzZWQgb3Zlci >Bh >>>IHZl >>>cnkgbGFyZ2UgYXJlYSBtYWtlcyBpbnN0YWxsYXRpb24gbXVjaCAKPiBlYXNpZXIgYW5kIG >No >>>ZWFw >>>ZXIgdGhhbiBpbiBBbWVyaWNhLiBUaGUgZGVuc2l0eSBvZiBwb3B1bGF0aW9uIGluIEphcG >Fu >>>IG9y >>>IAo+IFNvdXRoIEtvcmVhIGNsdXN0ZXJlZCB0b2dldGhlciBtYWtlcyBhbnkgZGlyZWN0IG >Nv >>>bXBh >>>cmlzb24gYmVjb21lIHNvbWV3aGF0IAo+IG1vb3Qg
Re: [WISPA] Network tower cam
If I click IP Cameras on your products page I get 0 results on a search page :/ On 1/22/09, 3-dB Networks wrote: > Inscape Data... we used them on our towers. > > We sell them too ;-) > > Daniel White > 3-dB Networks > http://www.3dbnetworks.com > > >>-Original Message- >>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >>Behalf Of Josh Luthman >>Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 6:26 PM >>To: WISPA General List >>Subject: [WISPA] Network tower cam >> >>We are interested in putting a camera up on a tower to get some "we're >>700 >>1337 4 u" feel. I do want a PoE/Ethernet one - no coax/analog cameras! >> >>Does anyone have suggestions? >> >>Josh Luthman >>Office: 937-552-2340 >>Direct: 937-552-2343 >>1100 Wayne St >>Suite 1337 >>Troy, OH 45373 >> >>awo+IEVhY2ggdGltZSBwZW9wbGUgY29tcGxhaW4gYWJvdXQgdGhlIGxhY2sgb2YgaGlnaCBz >>cGVl >>ZCBpbnRlcm5ldCBhY2Nlc3MgaXQgCj4gaXMgcXVpdGUgZGVwbG9yYWJsZSBpbmRlZWQgaWYg >>dGhl >>cmUgaXMgbm8gYWNjZXNzIHRocm91Z2ggZWl0aGVyIGRzbCBvciAKPiBjYWJsZSBwcm92aWRl >>cnMg >>YXZhaWxhYmxlIGluIHlvdXIgYXJlYS4KPiBIb3dldmVyLCBpZiBlaXRoZXIgb25lIG9mIHRo >>b3Nl >>IHNlcnZpY2VzIGNhbiBiZSBvYnRhaW5lZCB0aHJvdWdoIHlvdXIgCj4gbG9jYWwgcGhvbmUg >>Y29t >>cGFueSBvciBjYWJsZSBwcm92aWRlciBpdKGmcyBub3QgdmVyeSByZWFzb25hYmxlIHRvIAo+ >>IGNv >>bXBsYWluIGFuZCBleHBlY3QgY2FibGUgdG8gYmUgc3RydW5nIHRvIHlvdXIgaG9tZSBzbyB5 >>b3Ug >>Y2FuIGVuam95IAo+IGhpZ2hlciBpbnRlcm5ldCBzcGVlZCByZWxhdGl2ZWx5IHRvIHdoYXQg >>RFNM >>IGNhbiBwcmVzZW50bHkgb2ZmZXIgaW4gdGhlIAo+IFVTQSB3aGlsZSBzdGlsbCBjb21wbGFp >>bmlu >>ZyBhYm91dCA1MCBkb2xsYXIgcGVyIG1vbnRoIHByaWNlIHRhZyBpbiBzcGl0ZSAKPiBvZiB0 >>aGUg >>ZmFjdCB0aGF0IGl0IHdvdWxkIGNvc3QgdGVucyBvZiB0aG91c2FuZHMgb2YgZG9sbGFycyBv >>ciBp >>biBzb21lIAo+IGNhc2VzIGh1bmRyZWRzIG9mIHRob3VzYW5kcyBmb3IgY2FibGUgY29tcGFu >>aWVz >>IHRvIGRvIGl0IGluIG1hbnkgcGxhY2VzLiAKPiBGb3IgaG93IGxvbmcgd291bGQgeW91ciBt >>b250 >>aGx5IHJhdGUgb2YgNTAgVVNEIHRha2UgdG8gZGVmcmF5IHRoZSBjb3N0IG9mIAo+IGluc3Rh >>bGxh >>dGlvbiBmb3IgY2FibGUgY29tcGFuaWVzPyBUaGV5oaZyZSBpbiBidXNpbmVzcyBvZiBnZW5l >>cmF0 >>aW5nIAo+IHJldmVudWUgZm9yIHRoZWlyIHNoYXJlaG9sZGVycyBhbmQgYXJlIGluZGVlZCBw >>cml2 >>YXRlIGVudGVycHJpc2VzIHJhdGhlciAKPiB0aGFuIGNoYXJpdGllcyBhbmQgdGhlaXIgcHJp >>bWFy >>eSBvYmxpZ2F0aW9uIGlzIHRvIGdlbmVyYXRlIHJldHVybiBvbiAKPiBzaGFyZWhvbGRlcqGm >>cyBp >>bnZlc3RtZW50Lgo+IEluIHRoZW9yeSwgQURTTDIgKHVwIHRvIDI0IG1icykgdGhyb3VnaCBj >>b3Bw >>ZXIgbGluZXMgaXMgcGVyZmVjdGx5IGFibGUgdG8gCj4gbWF0Y2ggYW5kIGV2ZW4gZXhjZWVk >>IHR5 >>cGljYWwgMTAgb3IgMTUgbWJzIHBsYW5zIHRoYXQgYXJlIHVzdWFsbHkgb2ZmZXJlZCAKPiBi >>eSBj >>YWJsZSBjb21wYW5pZXMuIEluIHJlYWxpdHkgZHNsIHNpZ25hbCBpcyBzZW5zaXRpdmUgYW5k >>IHRo >>ZSBsb25nZXIgdGhlIAo+IGRpc3RhbmNlIGZyb20gdGVsLiBjby4gbmV0d29yayBjZW50ZXIg >>KGRz >>bGFtKSB0aGUgc2xvd2VyIGl0IGJlY29tZXMuIEFEU0wyIAo+IGlzIGEgdHlwZSBvZiB0ZWNo >>bm9s >>b2d5IHdoaWNoIGlzIHF1aXRlIHBvcHVsYXIgaW4gU291dGggS29yZWEuIEl0oaZzIG5vdCAK >>PiB0 >>cnVlIHRoYXQgZXZlcnlvbmUgaW4gS29yZWEgaGFzIGZpYmVybGlua3MgdG8gdGhlaXIgaG9t >>ZXMu >>IER1ZSB0byAKPiBwb3B1bGF0aW9uIGRlbnNpdHkgaXQgaXMgd2h5IHVubGlrZSBpbiBBbWVy >>aWNh >>IEFEU0wyIGRvZXMgd29yayB2ZXJ5IHdlbGwgCj4gYW5kIGlzIGEgcHJhY3RpY2FsIHNvbHV0 >>aW9u >>IGluIHRoYXQgY291bnRyeS4KPiBPZiBjb3Vyc2UsIGl0IGlzIGluZXhjdXNhYmxlIGFuZCBt >>dXN0 >>IGJlIG91dGxhd2VkIGF0IHN0YXRlIGFuZCBmZWRlcmFsIAo+IGxldmVsIGZvciB0ZWxlY29t >>IGFu >>ZCBjYWJsZSBjb21wYW5pZXMgdG8gc3R5bWllIGFuZCBpbnRlcmZlcmUgd2l0aCBsb2NhbCAK >>PiBp >>bml0aWF0aXZlcyB3aGVyZXZlciBhbmQgd2hlbmV2ZXIgbG9jYWwgY29tbXVuaXRpZXMgZGVj >>aWRl >>IHRvIGltcGxlbWVudCAKPiBmaWJlciBvciBhbnkgb3RoZXIgYnJvYWRiYW5kIHRlY2hub2xv >>Z3kg >>YXMgdGhleSBzZWUgZml0IGZvciB0aGVpciAKPiByZXNpZGVudHMuIEl0IGlzIGV2ZW4gbW9y >>ZSB1 >>bmNvbnNjaW9uYWJsZSB0byBpbnRlcmZlcmUgd2hlbiBubyBzZXJ2aWNlIGlzIAo+IGF2YWls >>YWJs >>ZSBmcm9tIHRob3NlIGNvbXBhbmllcy4KPiBJbiBtYW55IGluc3RhbmNlcyB3aGVuIHBlb3Bs >>ZSBj >>b21wYXJlIGJyb2FkYmFuZCBhdmFpbGFiaWxpdHkgaW4gSmFwYW4sIAo+IFNvdXRoIEtvcmVh >>IGFu >>ZCBFdXJvcGUgdGhlIGZhY3QgdGhhdCBwZW9wbGUgaW4gdGhlIGZpcnN0IHR3byBjb3VudHJp >>ZXMg >>Cj4gbWVudGlvbmVkIGFib3ZlIG92ZXJ3aGVsbWluZ2x5IHRlbmQgdG8gcmVzaWRlIGluIGFw >>YXJ0 >>bWVudHMgcmF0aGVyIHRoYW4gaW4gCj4gcHJpdmF0ZSBob21lcyBkaXNwZXJzZWQgb3ZlciBh >>IHZl >>cnkgbGFyZ2UgYXJlYSBtYWtlcyBpbnN0YWxsYXRpb24gbXVjaCAKPiBlYXNpZXIgYW5kIGNo >>ZWFw >>ZXIgdGhhbiBpbiBBbWVyaWNhLiBUaGUgZGVuc2l0eSBvZiBwb3B1bGF0aW9uIGluIEphcGFu >>IG9y >>IAo+IFNvdXRoIEtvcmVhIGNsdXN0ZXJlZCB0b2dldGhlciBtYWtlcyBhbnkgZGlyZWN0IGNv >>bXBh >>cmlzb24gYmVjb21lIHNvbWV3aGF0IAo+IG1vb3QgZm9yIEFtZXJpY2Fucy4gVGhlIFVTIGlz >>IGEg >>SFVHRSBjb3VudHJ5IHdoZXJlIHBlb3BsZSBhcmUgbW9yZSBzcHJlYWQgCj4gb3V0IHRoYW4g >>cHJv >>YmFibHkgaW4gYW55IG90aGVyIGluZHVzdHJpYWxpemVkIG5hdGlvbi4gSGVuY2UsIGEgbG9u >>ZyBh >>bmQgCj4gZXhwZW5zaXZlIGJyb2FkYmFuZCByb2xsIG91dCBiZWZvcmUgaXQgYmVjb21lcyBy >>ZWFk >>aWx5IGF2YWlsYWJsZSBmb3IgCj4gZXZlcnlvbmUgaW4gQW1lcmljYS4KPiBSZWdhcmRpbmcg >>RXVy >>b3BlIGRvbqGmdCBiZWxpZXZlIHNvbWUgcGVvcGxloaZzIGNsYWltcyBhYm91dCB1bml2ZXJz >>YWwg >>Cj4gYnJvYWRiYW5kIGF2YWlsYWJpbGl0eSBlaXRoZXIuIEluIEdlcm1hbnkgd2hlcmUgbXkg >>YnJv >>dGhlciBsaXZlcyBhYm91dCAzNSAKPiBtaWxlcyBhd2F5IGZyb20gU3R1dHRnYXJ0IHdoaWNo >>IGlz >>IGEgZmFpcmx5IGxhcmdlIGNpdH
Re: [WISPA] White Cable Available
We have just partnered closely with a manufacturer that will have beige and white available. Low cost un-shielded UV, CMX, PVC jacket. -Jeff -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom Fadgen Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 11:51 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] White Cable Available I have a source for white outdoor cable. I had a Manufacturer/Distributor make some special cable. 1000' is about the same price as General Cable 500' purchased from Home Depot. Hit me offlist for the contact info. I believe Travis buys for the same source. 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/ This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at 630-344-1586. 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] Network tower cam
Inscape Data... we used them on our towers. We sell them too ;-) Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com >-Original Message- >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >Behalf Of Josh Luthman >Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 6:26 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: [WISPA] Network tower cam > >We are interested in putting a camera up on a tower to get some "we're >700 >1337 4 u" feel. I do want a PoE/Ethernet one - no coax/analog cameras! > >Does anyone have suggestions? > >Josh Luthman >Office: 937-552-2340 >Direct: 937-552-2343 >1100 Wayne St >Suite 1337 >Troy, OH 45373 > >awo+IEVhY2ggdGltZSBwZW9wbGUgY29tcGxhaW4gYWJvdXQgdGhlIGxhY2sgb2YgaGlnaCBz >cGVl >ZCBpbnRlcm5ldCBhY2Nlc3MgaXQgCj4gaXMgcXVpdGUgZGVwbG9yYWJsZSBpbmRlZWQgaWYg >dGhl >cmUgaXMgbm8gYWNjZXNzIHRocm91Z2ggZWl0aGVyIGRzbCBvciAKPiBjYWJsZSBwcm92aWRl >cnMg >YXZhaWxhYmxlIGluIHlvdXIgYXJlYS4KPiBIb3dldmVyLCBpZiBlaXRoZXIgb25lIG9mIHRo >b3Nl >IHNlcnZpY2VzIGNhbiBiZSBvYnRhaW5lZCB0aHJvdWdoIHlvdXIgCj4gbG9jYWwgcGhvbmUg >Y29t >cGFueSBvciBjYWJsZSBwcm92aWRlciBpdKGmcyBub3QgdmVyeSByZWFzb25hYmxlIHRvIAo+ >IGNv >bXBsYWluIGFuZCBleHBlY3QgY2FibGUgdG8gYmUgc3RydW5nIHRvIHlvdXIgaG9tZSBzbyB5 >b3Ug >Y2FuIGVuam95IAo+IGhpZ2hlciBpbnRlcm5ldCBzcGVlZCByZWxhdGl2ZWx5IHRvIHdoYXQg >RFNM >IGNhbiBwcmVzZW50bHkgb2ZmZXIgaW4gdGhlIAo+IFVTQSB3aGlsZSBzdGlsbCBjb21wbGFp >bmlu >ZyBhYm91dCA1MCBkb2xsYXIgcGVyIG1vbnRoIHByaWNlIHRhZyBpbiBzcGl0ZSAKPiBvZiB0 >aGUg >ZmFjdCB0aGF0IGl0IHdvdWxkIGNvc3QgdGVucyBvZiB0aG91c2FuZHMgb2YgZG9sbGFycyBv >ciBp >biBzb21lIAo+IGNhc2VzIGh1bmRyZWRzIG9mIHRob3VzYW5kcyBmb3IgY2FibGUgY29tcGFu >aWVz >IHRvIGRvIGl0IGluIG1hbnkgcGxhY2VzLiAKPiBGb3IgaG93IGxvbmcgd291bGQgeW91ciBt >b250 >aGx5IHJhdGUgb2YgNTAgVVNEIHRha2UgdG8gZGVmcmF5IHRoZSBjb3N0IG9mIAo+IGluc3Rh >bGxh >dGlvbiBmb3IgY2FibGUgY29tcGFuaWVzPyBUaGV5oaZyZSBpbiBidXNpbmVzcyBvZiBnZW5l >cmF0 >aW5nIAo+IHJldmVudWUgZm9yIHRoZWlyIHNoYXJlaG9sZGVycyBhbmQgYXJlIGluZGVlZCBw >cml2 >YXRlIGVudGVycHJpc2VzIHJhdGhlciAKPiB0aGFuIGNoYXJpdGllcyBhbmQgdGhlaXIgcHJp >bWFy >eSBvYmxpZ2F0aW9uIGlzIHRvIGdlbmVyYXRlIHJldHVybiBvbiAKPiBzaGFyZWhvbGRlcqGm >cyBp >bnZlc3RtZW50Lgo+IEluIHRoZW9yeSwgQURTTDIgKHVwIHRvIDI0IG1icykgdGhyb3VnaCBj >b3Bw >ZXIgbGluZXMgaXMgcGVyZmVjdGx5IGFibGUgdG8gCj4gbWF0Y2ggYW5kIGV2ZW4gZXhjZWVk >IHR5 >cGljYWwgMTAgb3IgMTUgbWJzIHBsYW5zIHRoYXQgYXJlIHVzdWFsbHkgb2ZmZXJlZCAKPiBi >eSBj >YWJsZSBjb21wYW5pZXMuIEluIHJlYWxpdHkgZHNsIHNpZ25hbCBpcyBzZW5zaXRpdmUgYW5k >IHRo >ZSBsb25nZXIgdGhlIAo+IGRpc3RhbmNlIGZyb20gdGVsLiBjby4gbmV0d29yayBjZW50ZXIg >KGRz >bGFtKSB0aGUgc2xvd2VyIGl0IGJlY29tZXMuIEFEU0wyIAo+IGlzIGEgdHlwZSBvZiB0ZWNo >bm9s >b2d5IHdoaWNoIGlzIHF1aXRlIHBvcHVsYXIgaW4gU291dGggS29yZWEuIEl0oaZzIG5vdCAK >PiB0 >cnVlIHRoYXQgZXZlcnlvbmUgaW4gS29yZWEgaGFzIGZpYmVybGlua3MgdG8gdGhlaXIgaG9t >ZXMu >IER1ZSB0byAKPiBwb3B1bGF0aW9uIGRlbnNpdHkgaXQgaXMgd2h5IHVubGlrZSBpbiBBbWVy >aWNh >IEFEU0wyIGRvZXMgd29yayB2ZXJ5IHdlbGwgCj4gYW5kIGlzIGEgcHJhY3RpY2FsIHNvbHV0 >aW9u >IGluIHRoYXQgY291bnRyeS4KPiBPZiBjb3Vyc2UsIGl0IGlzIGluZXhjdXNhYmxlIGFuZCBt >dXN0 >IGJlIG91dGxhd2VkIGF0IHN0YXRlIGFuZCBmZWRlcmFsIAo+IGxldmVsIGZvciB0ZWxlY29t >IGFu >ZCBjYWJsZSBjb21wYW5pZXMgdG8gc3R5bWllIGFuZCBpbnRlcmZlcmUgd2l0aCBsb2NhbCAK >PiBp >bml0aWF0aXZlcyB3aGVyZXZlciBhbmQgd2hlbmV2ZXIgbG9jYWwgY29tbXVuaXRpZXMgZGVj >aWRl >IHRvIGltcGxlbWVudCAKPiBmaWJlciBvciBhbnkgb3RoZXIgYnJvYWRiYW5kIHRlY2hub2xv >Z3kg >YXMgdGhleSBzZWUgZml0IGZvciB0aGVpciAKPiByZXNpZGVudHMuIEl0IGlzIGV2ZW4gbW9y >ZSB1 >bmNvbnNjaW9uYWJsZSB0byBpbnRlcmZlcmUgd2hlbiBubyBzZXJ2aWNlIGlzIAo+IGF2YWls >YWJs >ZSBmcm9tIHRob3NlIGNvbXBhbmllcy4KPiBJbiBtYW55IGluc3RhbmNlcyB3aGVuIHBlb3Bs >ZSBj >b21wYXJlIGJyb2FkYmFuZCBhdmFpbGFiaWxpdHkgaW4gSmFwYW4sIAo+IFNvdXRoIEtvcmVh >IGFu >ZCBFdXJvcGUgdGhlIGZhY3QgdGhhdCBwZW9wbGUgaW4gdGhlIGZpcnN0IHR3byBjb3VudHJp >ZXMg >Cj4gbWVudGlvbmVkIGFib3ZlIG92ZXJ3aGVsbWluZ2x5IHRlbmQgdG8gcmVzaWRlIGluIGFw >YXJ0 >bWVudHMgcmF0aGVyIHRoYW4gaW4gCj4gcHJpdmF0ZSBob21lcyBkaXNwZXJzZWQgb3ZlciBh >IHZl >cnkgbGFyZ2UgYXJlYSBtYWtlcyBpbnN0YWxsYXRpb24gbXVjaCAKPiBlYXNpZXIgYW5kIGNo >ZWFw >ZXIgdGhhbiBpbiBBbWVyaWNhLiBUaGUgZGVuc2l0eSBvZiBwb3B1bGF0aW9uIGluIEphcGFu >IG9y >IAo+IFNvdXRoIEtvcmVhIGNsdXN0ZXJlZCB0b2dldGhlciBtYWtlcyBhbnkgZGlyZWN0IGNv >bXBh >cmlzb24gYmVjb21lIHNvbWV3aGF0IAo+IG1vb3QgZm9yIEFtZXJpY2Fucy4gVGhlIFVTIGlz >IGEg >SFVHRSBjb3VudHJ5IHdoZXJlIHBlb3BsZSBhcmUgbW9yZSBzcHJlYWQgCj4gb3V0IHRoYW4g >cHJv >YmFibHkgaW4gYW55IG90aGVyIGluZHVzdHJpYWxpemVkIG5hdGlvbi4gSGVuY2UsIGEgbG9u >ZyBh >bmQgCj4gZXhwZW5zaXZlIGJyb2FkYmFuZCByb2xsIG91dCBiZWZvcmUgaXQgYmVjb21lcyBy >ZWFk >aWx5IGF2YWlsYWJsZSBmb3IgCj4gZXZlcnlvbmUgaW4gQW1lcmljYS4KPiBSZWdhcmRpbmcg >RXVy >b3BlIGRvbqGmdCBiZWxpZXZlIHNvbWUgcGVvcGxloaZzIGNsYWltcyBhYm91dCB1bml2ZXJz >YWwg >Cj4gYnJvYWRiYW5kIGF2YWlsYWJpbGl0eSBlaXRoZXIuIEluIEdlcm1hbnkgd2hlcmUgbXkg >YnJv >dGhlciBsaXZlcyBhYm91dCAzNSAKPiBtaWxlcyBhd2F5IGZyb20gU3R1dHRnYXJ0IHdoaWNo >IGlz >IGEgZmFpcmx5IGxhcmdlIGNpdHkgdGhlcmUgaGUgaGFkIG5vdCAKPiBoYWQgYW55IG9wdGlv >bnMg >dW50aWwgZWFybHkgMjAwNyBhbmQgZXZlbiBub3cgaGUgYW5kIGhpcyBuZWlnaGJvcnMgb25s >eSAK >PiBjYW4gZ2V0IGFib3V0IDc4MGticyAobGVzcyB0aGFuIG9uZSBtZWdhYml0KSBkc2wgc3Bl >ZWQu >IFNvIGl0oaZzIAo+IGluYWNjdXJhdGUgdG8gcH
[WISPA] Network tower cam
We are interested in putting a camera up on a tower to get some "we're 700 1337 4 u" feel. I do want a PoE/Ethernet one - no coax/analog cameras! Does anyone have suggestions? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer 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] UBNT Bullet5 review...
We like gray. If you have to have a single color, it is the least obtrusive, at least to our tastes. - Original Message - From: "Charles Wu (CTI)" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 6:11 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... > Uh oh...we've started a holy war... > > > > Here's my philosophy these days...*NOTHING* works perfectly, but > *ANYTHING* can be made to work -> if there's will (and a little bit of > ingenuity and duct tape), there's a way =) > > That being said, there's a case to be made, especially when we're talking > scale here, when the "wizard of oz" can no longer run everything, but > crews of "dumb minions" have taken over, that a case for paying a premium > on hardware can be made due to the labor cost savings for stuff that just > works "out of the box" vs. stuff that requires "some tweaks" and "tribal > knowledge" to make work properly > > Heck, we paid a premium and converted our infrastructure to Windows and > Cisco b/c the benefit of hiring someone who had certs and could be > productive in 2 weeks of hiring was worth the extra premium than trying to > wait & train a new guy for 6-9 months... > > My 2 cents > > On another topic, I've been looking at Cat-5 cable for CPE installs, and > am trying to figure out what color everyone likes best > > Talking about the cheap, outdoor rated unshielded Cat-5e > > Me personally, I would have thought black, but I'm finding many seem to > prefer white/beige b/c it blends in better with vinyl siding > > Thoughts? > > -Charles > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:20 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... > > Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to > scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can > be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10,000 plus > users on their 802.11 based networks scaling right up to the same size > as any Canopy or Trango network.You might not be able to get to 150 > subs per AP, but you can certainly hit 50-75 per sector and offer > service that is damn close and a far sight cheaper than what Canopy will > do. I would take a StarOS a/b/g network over a Canopy system every day > of the week. > > As far as problems at AF09 - that is what you get when Canopy guys are > running an 802.11 network. If I was running it with the proven > equipment and deployment methods that many of us use on 802.11 networks, > there would not have been any such problems.Just because the AF09 > guys couldn't figure it out (or more likely didn't bother to try) > doesn't mean that it can't be done right. > > Matt Larsen > vistabeam.com > > > Travis Johnson wrote: >> The problem will be that they are still plain 802.11 technology. There >> is no polling or ARQ or FEC or anything else that makes technology like >> Trango, Canopy and others work so well. We pulled all of our 802.11 >> stuff down over 5 years ago. It does NOT scale. You will never get an AP >> with reliable, consistent service with more than 20 users. >> >> In fact, I think we witnessed this at AF09. Everyone connected to the >> same AP (48 I think was the count) and we continually got disconnected >> and the speeds and latency were terrible. Could there be a better "real >> world" experience than that? :) >> >> Travis >> Microserv >> >> Jerry Richardson wrote: >> >>> All I can do is shake my head. Ubiquity seems to have acquired some >>> Area51 technology. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> __ >>> Jerry Richardson >>> airCloud Communications >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >>> Behalf Of rea...@muddyfrogwater.us >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 3:42 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... >>> >>> I deployed my first Bullet5 today. Not the high power, but the >>> standard. >>> >>> throughput testing showed insignificant difference between my >>> Star-OS/WAR1 >>> combo and the Bullet. The AP shows that the Bullet has active >>> compression >>> and fast frames that functions with my star-os access point. >>> >>> I have not tried the narrower channels to see if they're compatible with >>> my star-os AP's. >>> >>> They have been certified with up to 30 db antennas. >>> >>> Summary... 1 bullet5, 1 pacwireless 25 db grid w/pigtail, 1 universal >>> mount = very cheap 5 ghz cpe - about $130 - 140 complete. Even >>> nicer??? >>> >>> The bullet slides down INTO the universal mount pipe, becoming invisible >>> after you mount and aim it. >>> >>> Just FYI... The Bullet does NAT and has a DHCP server built in. No >>> need >>> for a router, allows you to have a fully routed network. >>> >>> Opinion I lik
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
Matt, Yes, we are offering symmetrical speeds (1meg x 1meg, etc.), so our testing was based on that. So I would agree if you were not doing that, you can probably get 75 users (at a very maximum) on an 802.11 AP. However, I still believe there are other issues with plain 802.11 that does not have any type of polling... such as having a customer with a -50 signal while everyone else has a -75 signal. Regardless of QoS or any other setting, that -50 customer is going to get priority over anyone else on that AP. I would be curious what happens on an AP if that one customer were to start a very high pps upload using all of their allocated bandwidth? All of our tests used the AP as the bandwidth controller. There were still substantial issues when a customer started an upload. Here's where the numbers get interesting a StarOS AP is $300, but I can do a Canopy AP for $600 (and I can put the same antenna on it that you are putting on the StarOS system, and we can both be in violation of the FCC guidelines)... but I can put up to 200 customers with no impact on latency. So even if we figure 100 customers on the Canopy AP, it's the same cost as the StarOS AP. And for us, the bigger issue was being able to co-locate many AP's on the same tower. With Canopy, I could technically put 24 AP's on the same tower (even right on top of each other) and everything would still work. ;) As for management, we wrote two PHP scripts (total time of about 2-3 hours) that provide full management of all our Canopy AP's and SM's. We use JFFNMS to gather all the stats automatically (we don't have to add each SM, we only add the AP one time and it grabs everything about every SM connected including packets, traffic, signal, jitter, etc). All of this is open source, and I will probably post the scripts sometime in the near future. So now anyone with proper access can do any support or maintenance necessary all from a web browser... no PuTTy or whatever that crazy stuff is that StarOS requires... ;) Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Preparing to launch the Holy War Hand Grenade.:^) On the AF09 wireless, I am just following the terms you gave me as a "typical example of 802.11 not scaling". If there is only one access point for 50 users, then yes - cap it at 1Mbps. How much do temporary users need? If they needed 10meg, I would have deployed three 802.11b/g APs on different channels with different ESSIDs, and an 802.11a AP. A single X4000 board with StarOS and four omni antennas would have handled that just fine while delivering 5meg or so per client. But your real world example was a single AP. If someone wants to bottleneck a 300Mbps link with a single AP and then point out how bad that single AP performs, that is just bad network design and you can't hold 802.11 to blame for the problem. As far as polling goes, it just has not proven to be necessary to provide a quality level of service in many cases, including 99.9% of my customers. Note that I did not say ALL cases, as there are situations where polling does make sense - especially when you get beyond the 50-75 user per sector mark. I just haven't had any use for it because the extra costs of deployment did not justify the minimal benefits since nearly all of my APs are below the 50-75 users per sector range. I am familiar with the testing that you did with the 802.11 gear, but something just doesn't add up in your results, because my results are way different. Not knowing details, I'm going to make the assumption that you were using symmetrical bandwidth profiles (1meg up/1meg down), full speed with no bursting, and that your bandwidth control was being done at some point behind the access point. To get a higher number of users on an 802.11 AP, the upload rates need to be limited. The key is picking the tradeoff that works best. With symmetrical speeds and multimegabit packages, 20-30 users per AP is probably all you are going to get. With asymmetrical bandwidth packages, the available duty cycles for delivering data to customers are maximized and the latency issues you mentioned are mimimized. Bursting is another key feature to have available on 802.11 networks, since it gets the short data requests delivered faster. Bursting enabled us to double the number of users on an AP without issues. Having the bandwidth control on the AP, and not a device somewhere behind it - also seems to help considerably, and minimizes the chances of issues coming up between the wireless link and the bandwidth controller. In my tests, I can start simultaneous uploads or downloads on multiple CPE units on a loaded AP and still maintain decent latency (jumps from 2ms to 20-25ms) with no packet loss. YMMV, but that is what I see on my system, deployed in this manner. I'm glad that Canopy works for you and the others that use it. I have no use for it whatsoever because the 802.11 gear does what it needs to
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
1...2...5 Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Cameron Kilton wrote: > Kaboom - There is Wireless shrapnel is everywhere. > > -Cam > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:49 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... > > Preparing to launch the Holy War Hand Grenade.:^) > > On the AF09 wireless, I am just following the terms you gave me as a > "typical example of 802.11 not scaling". If there is only one access > point for 50 users, then yes - cap it at 1Mbps. How much do temporary > users need? If they needed 10meg, I would have deployed three > 802.11b/g APs on different channels with different ESSIDs, and an > 802.11a AP. A single X4000 board with StarOS and four omni antennas > would have handled that just fine while delivering 5meg or so per > client. But your real world example was a single AP. If someone wants > to bottleneck a 300Mbps link with a single AP and then point out how bad > > that single AP performs, that is just bad network design and you can't > hold 802.11 to blame for the problem. > > As far as polling goes, it just has not proven to be necessary to > provide a quality level of service in many cases, including 99.9% of my > customers. Note that I did not say ALL cases, as there are situations > where polling does make sense - especially when you get beyond the 50-75 > > user per sector mark. I just haven't had any use for it because the > extra costs of deployment did not justify the minimal benefits since > nearly all of my APs are below the 50-75 users per sector range. > > I am familiar with the testing that you did with the 802.11 gear, but > something just doesn't add up in your results, because my results are > way different. Not knowing details, I'm going to make the assumption > that you were using symmetrical bandwidth profiles (1meg up/1meg down), > full speed with no bursting, and that your bandwidth control was being > done at some point behind the access point. To get a higher number of > users on an 802.11 AP, the upload rates need to be limited. The key is > picking the tradeoff that works best. With symmetrical speeds and > multimegabit packages, 20-30 users per AP is probably all you are going > to get. With asymmetrical bandwidth packages, the available duty > cycles for delivering data to customers are maximized and the latency > issues you mentioned are mimimized. Bursting is another key feature to > have available on 802.11 networks, since it gets the short data requests > > delivered faster. Bursting enabled us to double the number of users on > > an AP without issues. Having the bandwidth control on the AP, and not > a device somewhere behind it - also seems to help considerably, and > minimizes the chances of issues coming up between the wireless link and > the bandwidth controller. In my tests, I can start simultaneous > uploads or downloads on multiple CPE units on a loaded AP and still > maintain decent latency (jumps from 2ms to 20-25ms) with no packet > loss. YMMV, but that is what I see on my system, deployed in this > manner. > > I'm glad that Canopy works for you and the others that use it. I have > no use for it whatsoever because the 802.11 gear does what it needs to > do when deployed in this fashion. When I have customers that need to > make the move beyond what our system is capable of, I'm going to spend > the money on 3.65 WiMax gear. > > Even without a promo, I could put up 24 sectors of StarOS for less than > $300 each. Or I could deploy 12 sectors and 12 backhauls. Or I could > > deploy 12 sectors, 12 backhauls and 3 full duplex links. And that > includes real, external antennas and not the little crappy patch > antennas inside of the Canopy case. And I have open source tools to > manage it, not this BAM or PRIZM or whatever crazy stuff that Canopy > requires. > > Your turn. :^) > > Matt Larsen > vistabeam.com > > > Travis Johnson wrote: > > Matt, > > > > This was Animal Farm... they had a 300Mbps link off their fiber > > backbone into this facility. Why would you cap people at 1Mbps? The > > issue is without polling, there is no way to control usage in a fair, > > equal manner. > > > > Let me explain what I have found in the last year. We did all kinds of > > > testing with Mikrotik, Nanostations, OSBridge, StarOS, etc. We decided > > > to deploy Mikrotik and use their Nstreme protocol to provide a > > consistant, polling based solution using off-the-shelf components. We > > have about 60 AP's deployed. We have found that even with polling and > > QoS on every single user, the system starts to have issues above 50 > > users. So we figured no problem
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
Kaboom - There is Wireless shrapnel is everywhere. -Cam -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... Preparing to launch the Holy War Hand Grenade.:^) On the AF09 wireless, I am just following the terms you gave me as a "typical example of 802.11 not scaling". If there is only one access point for 50 users, then yes - cap it at 1Mbps. How much do temporary users need? If they needed 10meg, I would have deployed three 802.11b/g APs on different channels with different ESSIDs, and an 802.11a AP. A single X4000 board with StarOS and four omni antennas would have handled that just fine while delivering 5meg or so per client. But your real world example was a single AP. If someone wants to bottleneck a 300Mbps link with a single AP and then point out how bad that single AP performs, that is just bad network design and you can't hold 802.11 to blame for the problem. As far as polling goes, it just has not proven to be necessary to provide a quality level of service in many cases, including 99.9% of my customers. Note that I did not say ALL cases, as there are situations where polling does make sense - especially when you get beyond the 50-75 user per sector mark. I just haven't had any use for it because the extra costs of deployment did not justify the minimal benefits since nearly all of my APs are below the 50-75 users per sector range. I am familiar with the testing that you did with the 802.11 gear, but something just doesn't add up in your results, because my results are way different. Not knowing details, I'm going to make the assumption that you were using symmetrical bandwidth profiles (1meg up/1meg down), full speed with no bursting, and that your bandwidth control was being done at some point behind the access point. To get a higher number of users on an 802.11 AP, the upload rates need to be limited. The key is picking the tradeoff that works best. With symmetrical speeds and multimegabit packages, 20-30 users per AP is probably all you are going to get. With asymmetrical bandwidth packages, the available duty cycles for delivering data to customers are maximized and the latency issues you mentioned are mimimized. Bursting is another key feature to have available on 802.11 networks, since it gets the short data requests delivered faster. Bursting enabled us to double the number of users on an AP without issues. Having the bandwidth control on the AP, and not a device somewhere behind it - also seems to help considerably, and minimizes the chances of issues coming up between the wireless link and the bandwidth controller. In my tests, I can start simultaneous uploads or downloads on multiple CPE units on a loaded AP and still maintain decent latency (jumps from 2ms to 20-25ms) with no packet loss. YMMV, but that is what I see on my system, deployed in this manner. I'm glad that Canopy works for you and the others that use it. I have no use for it whatsoever because the 802.11 gear does what it needs to do when deployed in this fashion. When I have customers that need to make the move beyond what our system is capable of, I'm going to spend the money on 3.65 WiMax gear. Even without a promo, I could put up 24 sectors of StarOS for less than $300 each. Or I could deploy 12 sectors and 12 backhauls. Or I could deploy 12 sectors, 12 backhauls and 3 full duplex links. And that includes real, external antennas and not the little crappy patch antennas inside of the Canopy case. And I have open source tools to manage it, not this BAM or PRIZM or whatever crazy stuff that Canopy requires. Your turn. :^) Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: > Matt, > > This was Animal Farm... they had a 300Mbps link off their fiber > backbone into this facility. Why would you cap people at 1Mbps? The > issue is without polling, there is no way to control usage in a fair, > equal manner. > > Let me explain what I have found in the last year. We did all kinds of > testing with Mikrotik, Nanostations, OSBridge, StarOS, etc. We decided > to deploy Mikrotik and use their Nstreme protocol to provide a > consistant, polling based solution using off-the-shelf components. We > have about 60 AP's deployed. We have found that even with polling and > QoS on every single user, the system starts to have issues above 50 > users. So we figured no problem, just put up more AP's on the same > towers. Even while using only 10mhz channel sizes, you have to have at > least 20mhz between AP's or they cause interference. So, we now have > some towers with 6 Mikrotik AP's, but instead of using 60mhz of > spectrum, we are using more like 180mhz of spectrum. > > Only having been in the Canopy game for less than a month, I can tell > yo
[WISPA] White Cable Available
I have a source for white outdoor cable. I had a Manufacturer/Distributor make some special cable. 1000' is about the same price as General Cable 500' purchased from Home Depot. Hit me offlist for the contact info. I believe Travis buys for the same source. 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] Ubnt SR-71A throughput
Fellows, does anyone already using Ubiquiti's SR-71A cards? We are proceding some indoor speed tests with 2 LiteStations SR-71 with SR-71A cards. The units are conected in Access Point WDS mode, each one using 2 antennas, in 11Na - 40 MHz channel mode. However, throughput doesnt pass 22 Mb/s... Regards. Fernando Benaiter Micromatix Canoas - RS - Brazil 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] UBNT Bullet5 review...
Preparing to launch the Holy War Hand Grenade.:^) On the AF09 wireless, I am just following the terms you gave me as a "typical example of 802.11 not scaling". If there is only one access point for 50 users, then yes - cap it at 1Mbps. How much do temporary users need? If they needed 10meg, I would have deployed three 802.11b/g APs on different channels with different ESSIDs, and an 802.11a AP. A single X4000 board with StarOS and four omni antennas would have handled that just fine while delivering 5meg or so per client. But your real world example was a single AP. If someone wants to bottleneck a 300Mbps link with a single AP and then point out how bad that single AP performs, that is just bad network design and you can't hold 802.11 to blame for the problem. As far as polling goes, it just has not proven to be necessary to provide a quality level of service in many cases, including 99.9% of my customers. Note that I did not say ALL cases, as there are situations where polling does make sense - especially when you get beyond the 50-75 user per sector mark. I just haven't had any use for it because the extra costs of deployment did not justify the minimal benefits since nearly all of my APs are below the 50-75 users per sector range. I am familiar with the testing that you did with the 802.11 gear, but something just doesn't add up in your results, because my results are way different. Not knowing details, I'm going to make the assumption that you were using symmetrical bandwidth profiles (1meg up/1meg down), full speed with no bursting, and that your bandwidth control was being done at some point behind the access point. To get a higher number of users on an 802.11 AP, the upload rates need to be limited. The key is picking the tradeoff that works best. With symmetrical speeds and multimegabit packages, 20-30 users per AP is probably all you are going to get. With asymmetrical bandwidth packages, the available duty cycles for delivering data to customers are maximized and the latency issues you mentioned are mimimized. Bursting is another key feature to have available on 802.11 networks, since it gets the short data requests delivered faster. Bursting enabled us to double the number of users on an AP without issues. Having the bandwidth control on the AP, and not a device somewhere behind it - also seems to help considerably, and minimizes the chances of issues coming up between the wireless link and the bandwidth controller. In my tests, I can start simultaneous uploads or downloads on multiple CPE units on a loaded AP and still maintain decent latency (jumps from 2ms to 20-25ms) with no packet loss. YMMV, but that is what I see on my system, deployed in this manner. I'm glad that Canopy works for you and the others that use it. I have no use for it whatsoever because the 802.11 gear does what it needs to do when deployed in this fashion. When I have customers that need to make the move beyond what our system is capable of, I'm going to spend the money on 3.65 WiMax gear. Even without a promo, I could put up 24 sectors of StarOS for less than $300 each. Or I could deploy 12 sectors and 12 backhauls. Or I could deploy 12 sectors, 12 backhauls and 3 full duplex links. And that includes real, external antennas and not the little crappy patch antennas inside of the Canopy case. And I have open source tools to manage it, not this BAM or PRIZM or whatever crazy stuff that Canopy requires. Your turn. :^) Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: > Matt, > > This was Animal Farm... they had a 300Mbps link off their fiber > backbone into this facility. Why would you cap people at 1Mbps? The > issue is without polling, there is no way to control usage in a fair, > equal manner. > > Let me explain what I have found in the last year. We did all kinds of > testing with Mikrotik, Nanostations, OSBridge, StarOS, etc. We decided > to deploy Mikrotik and use their Nstreme protocol to provide a > consistant, polling based solution using off-the-shelf components. We > have about 60 AP's deployed. We have found that even with polling and > QoS on every single user, the system starts to have issues above 50 > users. So we figured no problem, just put up more AP's on the same > towers. Even while using only 10mhz channel sizes, you have to have at > least 20mhz between AP's or they cause interference. So, we now have > some towers with 6 Mikrotik AP's, but instead of using 60mhz of > spectrum, we are using more like 180mhz of spectrum. > > Only having been in the Canopy game for less than a month, I can tell > you so far having GPS sync and timing is pretty cool. I can put as > many AP's as I want on a tower, and all over everywhere, and I don't > have to worry about stepping on myself. So each AP uses 25mhz, but I > can get 200+ subs on each AP, and I can deliver 7-10ms latency all the > time, to eve
Re: [WISPA] UPS options (WAS: We're being DDOS'd by DC!)
This type of AGM battery is the way to go if you're stringing batteries off a UPS. They are sealed so you don't need to worry about hydrogen venting, explosions, permits if it's being installed in a building, etc. Plus the standard chargers in APC UPSes are designed for use with AGM batteries, not flooded cell lead acid like you find at Wal-Mart. One thing to keep in mind when buying AGM batteries: find the actual datasheet for the battery and find out at what discharge rate the battery capacity is specified. Some of the cheap chinese batteries are rated at a slower discharge rate, which artificially inflates their capacity when compared to batteries rated at the standard 20 hour discharge rate. Also when doing runtime calcs you need to look up the capacity for the discharge rate you will be using in order to get an accurate number. Patrick Shoemaker Vector Data Systems LLC shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com office: (301) 358-1690 x36 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Travis Johnson wrote: > Hi, > > I just bought some today for one of our bigger tower sites. We will > install four of these connected to an APC SmartUps 1400 and will > probably get 30+ hours of uptime (this site has multiple switches, > routers, point to point links, licensed links, rebooter and over 10 AP's). > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&item=250316783682 > > The real killer is the shipping. These things each weigh about 110 > pounds (and they don't have any handles). But they are very nice > batteries. We have about 44 of them installed at our bigger tower sites. > > Travis > Microserv > > Leroy wrote: >> Gino, >> >> What batteries are you using? I've seen posts of your UPS setup in the past, >> very nice. >> >> Leroy >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Gino Villarini >> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 8:28 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] We're being DDOS'd by DC! >> >> The bigger the ups the better charger it has, typically we use 1400 and >> 1500 units >> >> >> Gino A. Villarini >> g...@aeronetpr.com >> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer >> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 2:49 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] We're being DDOS'd by DC! >> >> I wondered about just swapping out the batteries on my APC units and >> instead hooking the units to bigger batteries. My fear is that the >> chargers won't hold up to long charge times that would be needed for a >> big marine battery instead of a little exit light battery >> >> Thoughts? Anyone already tried this? >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "jp" >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 8:36 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] We're being DDOS'd by DC! >> >> >> >>> I like the tripplite APS 700hf/750/1250 gear. >>> >>> We've got sites with 2 big batteries that should be good for 24 hours >>> with these. >>> >>> I put one at my house after going through 2 APC UPSs in 8 years. >>> >>> We put them everywhere we need long run time, and add batteries for >>> places where it's impractical to take a generator. >>> >>> I don't mind freely recommending them. My competition has already seen >>> how well they work at a mountaintop site where we are both located and >>> has since followed that route in the interest of long runtime. >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 07:07:19AM -0800, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>> Yeah. But they don't last forever. I've also found that they drain faster than they charge too. Right now I have rolling power outages in at least 4 towns spread out >> by >> a good 80 miles via road. The power is on, then off then on then off. It's not like I can just got to town A and fire up a generator. Plus, these towns combine for a total of 11 sites! I don't have that >> >> many generators. Wanna know the funny part? In Wilbur, AT&T's cell tower has been >> down >> more than I have! grin People still had phone service most of the time. One of the cell >> phone >> companies stayed up. If there was NO communications infrastructure >> in >> place I'd have worked harder to keep things running. Without help and a >> lot >> more generators/gas cans it just wasn't possible though. The weather is supposed to break today or tomorrow. I don't know >> how >> long it'll take to clean up all of the broken limbs etc. though. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "George Rogato" To:
Re: [WISPA] Cat5e Colors - Was: UBNT Bullet5 review...
Dayton Wintronic, local place to me but they do ship. Simply ask for outdoor cat5. http://www.daytonwintronic.com/ Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 12:00 PM, George Rogato wrote: > Where do you get the white outdoor rated cable? > > > Josh Luthman wrote: > > White outdoor cable for installs, blue indoor stuff and black for towers > > (has a thick PVC outside for burial). > > > > Color isn't very important to us, it's just what happened. > > > > Josh Luthman > > Office: 937-552-2340 > > Direct: 937-552-2343 > > 1100 Wayne St > > Suite 1337 > > Troy, OH 45373 > > > > Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. > > --- Henry Spencer > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Randy Cosby > wrote: > > > >> Living here in the southwest, white is pretty much out. Almost > >> everything out here is tan / brown stucco so white sticks out like a > >> sore thumb. We rely on tan (beige) and gray cable. Only use black on > >> towers. > >> > >> > >> > http://www.superioressex.com/uploadedFiles/Communications_Cable/cat5e_cmrcmx_outdoor.pdf > >>> On another topic, I've been looking at Cat-5 cable for CPE installs, > and > >> am trying to figure out what color everyone likes best > >>> Talking about the cheap, outdoor rated unshielded Cat-5e > >>> > >>> Me personally, I would have thought black, but I'm finding many seem to > >> prefer white/beige b/c it blends in better with vinyl siding > >>> Thoughts? > >>> > >>> -Charles > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> Randy Cosby > >> Vice President > >> InfoWest, Inc > >> > >> work: 435-773-6071 > >> email: rco...@infowest.com > >> > >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/randycosby > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> 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] Cat5e Colors - Was: UBNT Bullet5 review...
Yeah, where? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:01 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cat5e Colors - Was: UBNT Bullet5 review... Where do you get the white outdoor rated cable? Josh Luthman wrote: > White outdoor cable for installs, blue indoor stuff and black for towers > (has a thick PVC outside for burial). > > Color isn't very important to us, it's just what happened. > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. > --- Henry Spencer > > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Randy Cosby wrote: > >> Living here in the southwest, white is pretty much out. Almost >> everything out here is tan / brown stucco so white sticks out like a >> sore thumb. We rely on tan (beige) and gray cable. Only use black on >> towers. >> >> >> http://www.superioressex.com/uploadedFiles/Communications_Cable/cat5e_cm rcmx_outdoor.pdf >>> On another topic, I've been looking at Cat-5 cable for CPE installs, and >> am trying to figure out what color everyone likes best >>> Talking about the cheap, outdoor rated unshielded Cat-5e >>> >>> Me personally, I would have thought black, but I'm finding many seem to >> prefer white/beige b/c it blends in better with vinyl siding >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> -Charles >>> >>> >> -- >> Randy Cosby >> Vice President >> InfoWest, Inc >> >> work: 435-773-6071 >> email: rco...@infowest.com >> >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/randycosby >> >> >> >> >> >> 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] Cat5e Colors - Was: UBNT Bullet5 review...
Where do you get the white outdoor rated cable? Josh Luthman wrote: > White outdoor cable for installs, blue indoor stuff and black for towers > (has a thick PVC outside for burial). > > Color isn't very important to us, it's just what happened. > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. > --- Henry Spencer > > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Randy Cosby wrote: > >> Living here in the southwest, white is pretty much out. Almost >> everything out here is tan / brown stucco so white sticks out like a >> sore thumb. We rely on tan (beige) and gray cable. Only use black on >> towers. >> >> >> http://www.superioressex.com/uploadedFiles/Communications_Cable/cat5e_cmrcmx_outdoor.pdf >>> On another topic, I've been looking at Cat-5 cable for CPE installs, and >> am trying to figure out what color everyone likes best >>> Talking about the cheap, outdoor rated unshielded Cat-5e >>> >>> Me personally, I would have thought black, but I'm finding many seem to >> prefer white/beige b/c it blends in better with vinyl siding >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> -Charles >>> >>> >> -- >> Randy Cosby >> Vice President >> InfoWest, Inc >> >> work: 435-773-6071 >> email: rco...@infowest.com >> >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/randycosby >> >> >> >> >> >> 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] UBNT Bullet5 review... - OFFLIST
Maybe it's all that skiing getting to him. ;-) - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "3-dB Networks" Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 5:58 AM To: "'WISPA General List'" Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... - OFFLIST > This seems to be happening a lot lately :-) > > Daniel White > 3-dB Networks > http://www.3dbnetworks.com > > >>-Original Message- >>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >>Behalf Of Charles Wu (CTI) >>Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 2:17 AM >>To: WISPA General List >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... - OFFLIST >> >>Chuck, >> >>Just a word of friendly advice >> >>The Canopy / WISP resale world is a competitive and brutal space -- if >>your plan is to target WISPs, I'd recommend that you save the trouble >>and find another vertical market or product >> >>The "reseller" cost that you see isn't that far off of what "street >>WISP" pricing is for anyone who's deploying in any decent quantity -- >>that's just the nature of the business >> >>You need a minimum of $5 million / year in volume and probably close to >>$500k in stock to "get in the WISP game" -- but at this point in the >>game, you're in a chicken & egg situation, since I'm not quite sure how >>you'd build up that volume, given that >> >>(1) most WISPs already have pre-existing relationships with their >>current suppliers, and inertia is an extremely hard thing to break >> >>(2) any new WISP you spend the time to get going that results in any >>decent volume will probably get swiped by the "bigger guys" because it >>ultimately all boils down to price and financing -- and they have the >>volume and pricing advantage to take you out of the market >> >>There's a reason why Streakwave went back to focus on Mikrotik / >>Ubiquiti 2 years ago >> >>Irregardless, whether or not you choose to listen to my advice, Welcome >>to the big leagues =) >> >>-Charles >> >>P.S. -- we need to sync up again sometime and talk about how IP Pay can >>save you $$$ >> >>-Original Message- >>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >>Behalf Of Chuck Hogg >>Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 11:13 PM >>To: WISPA General List >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... >> >>The cheapest I have ever seen large bulk distributor pricing with >>buyback money is a little over $200 per SM except 900Mhz. Now, if you >>are looking at the Lite version SM's they certainly can be had for >>cheaper. All these WISPs claiming cheaper price is not telling the >>truth. Even Motorola disputes the price when questioned (yes I am a >>distributor of Motorola products too). Ask that WISP to buy 100 packs >>from them for me, I'll pay a 10% premium! >> >> >> >>Also, I agree with both of you here. Having both 900MHz Trango and >>2.4Ghz MikroTik, the Trango performs very impressively with >50 clients >>per AP. I have a few AP's that are currently 100+ and they don't drop >>packets, and the latency is great in comparison. However, properly >>maintained 802.11 networks do pretty well also, but I don't see them >>outperforming what Trango does on clients per AP level. >> >> >> >>Regards, >> >>Chuck Hogg >> >>Avolutia, LLC >>502-722-9292 >>ch...@avolutia.com >> >>http://www.avolutia.com >> >>http://www.shelbybb.com >> >> >> >>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >>Behalf Of Travis Johnson >>Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 10:34 PM >>To: WISPA General List >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... >> >> >> >>Matt, >> >>I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure we >>need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could have >>setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all >>different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal bandwidth >>and latency at AF09? >> >>And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 >>stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using >>StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and we >>connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the >>other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the upload >>to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, the other client >>has very high latency, very bad download speeds, etc. >> >>As for price on Canopy vs. 802.11... things are not always as they seem. >>I know of a large Canopy operator that is buying radios for $160 each. >>;) >> >>And, we have Trango AP's that only deliver 5Mbps total with 128 clients >>and we deliver 4ms latency to every single client. >> >>Travis >>Microserv >> >>Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: >> >>Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to >>scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can >> >>be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10
Re: [WISPA] Cat5e Colors - Was: UBNT Bullet5 review...
White outdoor cable for installs, blue indoor stuff and black for towers (has a thick PVC outside for burial). Color isn't very important to us, it's just what happened. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Randy Cosby wrote: > Living here in the southwest, white is pretty much out. Almost > everything out here is tan / brown stucco so white sticks out like a > sore thumb. We rely on tan (beige) and gray cable. Only use black on > towers. > > > http://www.superioressex.com/uploadedFiles/Communications_Cable/cat5e_cmrcmx_outdoor.pdf > > On another topic, I've been looking at Cat-5 cable for CPE installs, and > am trying to figure out what color everyone likes best > > > > Talking about the cheap, outdoor rated unshielded Cat-5e > > > > Me personally, I would have thought black, but I'm finding many seem to > prefer white/beige b/c it blends in better with vinyl siding > > > > Thoughts? > > > > -Charles > > > > > > -- > Randy Cosby > Vice President > InfoWest, Inc > > work: 435-773-6071 > email: rco...@infowest.com > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/randycosby > > > > > > 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] Cat5e Colors - Was: UBNT Bullet5 review...
Living here in the southwest, white is pretty much out. Almost everything out here is tan / brown stucco so white sticks out like a sore thumb. We rely on tan (beige) and gray cable. Only use black on towers. http://www.superioressex.com/uploadedFiles/Communications_Cable/cat5e_cmrcmx_outdoor.pdf > On another topic, I've been looking at Cat-5 cable for CPE installs, and am > trying to figure out what color everyone likes best > > Talking about the cheap, outdoor rated unshielded Cat-5e > > Me personally, I would have thought black, but I'm finding many seem to > prefer white/beige b/c it blends in better with vinyl siding > > Thoughts? > > -Charles > > -- Randy Cosby Vice President InfoWest, Inc work: 435-773-6071 email: rco...@infowest.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/randycosby 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] UBNT Bullet5 review...
Last time I looked there where no commonly used devices for laptop that do polling. For internal "public" network to serve pda's, laptops etc your only option is WiFi and it is do able to support a lot of those users just have to design it right. Each unit has it purpose and place canopy et al right now do not have a position in the laptop market. Would be funny to see a conference where people walk around with canopy units attached to their laptops for internet access and searching for power outlets to power them. Lol. /Eje Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: Travis Johnson Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:19:18 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... 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] UBNT Bullet5 review...
Yum, GPS sync, I wish everyone did that. Especially MikroTik! -Cameron -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 10:19 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... Matt, This was Animal Farm... they had a 300Mbps link off their fiber backbone into this facility. Why would you cap people at 1Mbps? The issue is without polling, there is no way to control usage in a fair, equal manner. Let me explain what I have found in the last year. We did all kinds of testing with Mikrotik, Nanostations, OSBridge, StarOS, etc. We decided to deploy Mikrotik and use their Nstreme protocol to provide a consistant, polling based solution using off-the-shelf components. We have about 60 AP's deployed. We have found that even with polling and QoS on every single user, the system starts to have issues above 50 users. So we figured no problem, just put up more AP's on the same towers. Even while using only 10mhz channel sizes, you have to have at least 20mhz between AP's or they cause interference. So, we now have some towers with 6 Mikrotik AP's, but instead of using 60mhz of spectrum, we are using more like 180mhz of spectrum. Only having been in the Canopy game for less than a month, I can tell you so far having GPS sync and timing is pretty cool. I can put as many AP's as I want on a tower, and all over everywhere, and I don't have to worry about stepping on myself. So each AP uses 25mhz, but I can get 200+ subs on each AP, and I can deliver 7-10ms latency all the time, to every single user. And, with the last promo that Motorola did, I purchased 24 APs' for less than $600 each. :) Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Travis, Ok, I'm game. First of all, a plain 802.11g wireless AP should be thrown in the junk pile and replaced with StarOS or MT.Depending on the quality of signal and modulation rates from the majority of the users, I would have also removed some of the higher mods to reduce rate shifts. And then, I would have set up bandwidth profiles for each user to something in the 1meg down/512K up range. That would pretty much fix the bandwidth and latency problem. When I do your upload test, I don't have the same problems. I do bandwidth control in the access point, and with upload rates set to half of the download rates, I have no problem putting 50 to 75 users on one AP and still provide good download speeds (1meg/2meg/4meg packages) with decent latency (20-40ms latency at peaks) and no packet loss. That is also with quite a few VOIP users who would be howling if the service didn't work. BTW, Canopy radios at $160 are double the cost of a NanoStation. Canopy with a reflector is 3x the cost of a Bullet5 and 26db grid. StarOS APs are at least 1/4th the cost of a comparable Canopy AP. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure we need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could have setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal bandwidth and latency at AF09? And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and we connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the upload to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, the other client has very high latency, very bad download speeds, etc. As for price on Canopy vs. 802.11... things are not always as they seem. I know of a large Canopy operator that is buying radios for $160 each. ;) And, we have Trango AP's that only deliver 5Mbps total with 128 clients and we deliver 4ms latency to every single client. Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10,000 plus users on their 802.11 based networks scaling right up to the same size as any Canopy or Trango network.You might not be able to get to 150 subs per AP, but you can certainly hit 50-75 per sector and offer service that is damn close and a far sight cheaper than what Canopy will do. I would take a StarOS a/b/g network over a Canopy system every day of the week. As far as problems at AF09 - that is what you get when Canopy guys are running an 802.11 network. If I was running it with the proven equipment and deployment methods that many of us use on 802.11 networks, there would not have been any such problems.Just because the AF09 guys couldn't figure it out
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
If you're using nstreme for point to multipoint OR wds be sure you're running a very very recent version of ROS! Nstreme used to not work well at all on APs with 10-20+ customers. I believe the new wireless package is included as of 3.16. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Travis Johnson wrote: > Matt, > > This was Animal Farm... they had a 300Mbps link off their fiber backbone > into this facility. Why would you cap people at 1Mbps? The issue is without > polling, there is no way to control usage in a fair, equal manner. > > Let me explain what I have found in the last year. We did all kinds of > testing with Mikrotik, Nanostations, OSBridge, StarOS, etc. We decided to > deploy Mikrotik and use their Nstreme protocol to provide a consistant, > polling based solution using off-the-shelf components. We have about 60 AP's > deployed. We have found that even with polling and QoS on every single user, > the system starts to have issues above 50 users. So we figured no problem, > just put up more AP's on the same towers. Even while using only 10mhz > channel sizes, you have to have at least 20mhz between AP's or they cause > interference. So, we now have some towers with 6 Mikrotik AP's, but instead > of using 60mhz of spectrum, we are using more like 180mhz of spectrum. > > Only having been in the Canopy game for less than a month, I can tell you > so far having GPS sync and timing is pretty cool. I can put as many AP's as > I want on a tower, and all over everywhere, and I don't have to worry about > stepping on myself. So each AP uses 25mhz, but I can get 200+ subs on each > AP, and I can deliver 7-10ms latency all the time, to every single user. > > And, with the last promo that Motorola did, I purchased 24 APs' for less > than $600 each. :) > > > Travis > Microserv > > Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: > > Travis, > > Ok, I'm game. > > First of all, a plain 802.11g wireless AP should be thrown in the junk > pile and replaced with StarOS or MT.Depending on the quality of > signal and modulation rates from the majority of the users, I would have > also removed some of the higher mods to reduce rate shifts. And then, > I would have set up bandwidth profiles for each user to something in the > 1meg down/512K up range. That would pretty much fix the bandwidth and > latency problem. > > When I do your upload test, I don't have the same problems. I do > bandwidth control in the access point, and with upload rates set to half > of the download rates, I have no problem putting 50 to 75 users on one > AP and still provide good download speeds (1meg/2meg/4meg packages) with > decent latency (20-40ms latency at peaks) and no packet loss. That is > also with quite a few VOIP users who would be howling if the service > didn't work. > > BTW, Canopy radios at $160 are double the cost of a NanoStation. > Canopy with a reflector is 3x the cost of a Bullet5 and 26db grid. > StarOS APs are at least 1/4th the cost of a comparable Canopy AP. > > Matt Larsenvistabeam.com > > Travis Johnson wrote: > > > Matt, > > I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure > we need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could > have setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all > different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal > bandwidth and latency at AF09? > > And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 > stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using > StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and > we connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the > other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the > upload to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, the > other client has very high latency, very bad download speeds, etc. > > As for price on Canopy vs. 802.11... things are not always as they > seem. I know of a large Canopy operator that is buying radios for $160 > each. ;) > > And, we have Trango AP's that only deliver 5Mbps total with 128 > clients and we deliver 4ms latency to every single client. > > Travis > Microserv > > Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: > > > Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to > scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can > be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10,000 plus > users on their 802.11 based networks scaling right up to the same size > as any Canopy or Trango network.You might not be able to get to 150 > subs per AP, but you can certainly hit 50-75 per sector and offer > service that is damn close and a far sight cheaper than what Canopy will > do. I would take a StarOS a/b/g network over a Canopy system every day > of the week. > > As far as pro
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
Matt, This was Animal Farm... they had a 300Mbps link off their fiber backbone into this facility. Why would you cap people at 1Mbps? The issue is without polling, there is no way to control usage in a fair, equal manner. Let me explain what I have found in the last year. We did all kinds of testing with Mikrotik, Nanostations, OSBridge, StarOS, etc. We decided to deploy Mikrotik and use their Nstreme protocol to provide a consistant, polling based solution using off-the-shelf components. We have about 60 AP's deployed. We have found that even with polling and QoS on every single user, the system starts to have issues above 50 users. So we figured no problem, just put up more AP's on the same towers. Even while using only 10mhz channel sizes, you have to have at least 20mhz between AP's or they cause interference. So, we now have some towers with 6 Mikrotik AP's, but instead of using 60mhz of spectrum, we are using more like 180mhz of spectrum. Only having been in the Canopy game for less than a month, I can tell you so far having GPS sync and timing is pretty cool. I can put as many AP's as I want on a tower, and all over everywhere, and I don't have to worry about stepping on myself. So each AP uses 25mhz, but I can get 200+ subs on each AP, and I can deliver 7-10ms latency all the time, to every single user. And, with the last promo that Motorola did, I purchased 24 APs' for less than $600 each. :) Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Travis, Ok, I'm game. First of all, a plain 802.11g wireless AP should be thrown in the junk pile and replaced with StarOS or MT.Depending on the quality of signal and modulation rates from the majority of the users, I would have also removed some of the higher mods to reduce rate shifts. And then, I would have set up bandwidth profiles for each user to something in the 1meg down/512K up range. That would pretty much fix the bandwidth and latency problem. When I do your upload test, I don't have the same problems. I do bandwidth control in the access point, and with upload rates set to half of the download rates, I have no problem putting 50 to 75 users on one AP and still provide good download speeds (1meg/2meg/4meg packages) with decent latency (20-40ms latency at peaks) and no packet loss. That is also with quite a few VOIP users who would be howling if the service didn't work. BTW, Canopy radios at $160 are double the cost of a NanoStation. Canopy with a reflector is 3x the cost of a Bullet5 and 26db grid. StarOS APs are at least 1/4th the cost of a comparable Canopy AP. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure we need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could have setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal bandwidth and latency at AF09? And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and we connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the upload to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, the other client has very high latency, very bad download speeds, etc. As for price on Canopy vs. 802.11... things are not always as they seem. I know of a large Canopy operator that is buying radios for $160 each. ;) And, we have Trango AP's that only deliver 5Mbps total with 128 clients and we deliver 4ms latency to every single client. Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10,000 plus users on their 802.11 based networks scaling right up to the same size as any Canopy or Trango network.You might not be able to get to 150 subs per AP, but you can certainly hit 50-75 per sector and offer service that is damn close and a far sight cheaper than what Canopy will do. I would take a StarOS a/b/g network over a Canopy system every day of the week. As far as problems at AF09 - that is what you get when Canopy guys are running an 802.11 network. If I was running it with the proven equipment and deployment methods that many of us use on 802.11 networks, there would not have been any such problems.Just because the AF09 guys couldn't figure it out (or more likely didn't bother to try) doesn't mean that it can't be done right. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: The problem will be that they are still plain 802.11 technology. There is no polling or ARQ or FEC or anything else that makes technology li
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
AF 101 http://www.wisptech.com/index.php/Animal_Farm AF09 http://www.wbmfg.com/animalfarm -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Ron Wallace Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:14 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... OK, what is AF09? So I'm just a dumb country boy. Ron Wallace Hahnron, Inc. 220 S. Jackson Dt. Addison, MI 49220 Phone: (517)547-8410 Mobile: (517)270-2410 e-mail: rwall...@newgenet.net rwall...@tigernet.bz -Original Message- From: Matt Larsen - Lists [mailto:li...@manageisp.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 04:44 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... Travis,Ok, I'm game.First of all, a plain 802.11g wireless AP should be thrown in the junk pile and replaced with StarOS or MT. Depending on the quality of signal and modulation rates from the majority of the users, I would have also removed some of the higher mods to reduce rate shifts. And then, I would have set up bandwidth profiles for each user to something in the 1meg down/512K up range. That would pretty much fix the bandwidth and latency problem.When I do your upload test, I don't have the same problems. I do bandwidth control in the access point, and with upload rates set to half of the download rates, I have no problem putting 50 to 75 users on one AP and still provide good download speeds (1meg/2meg/4meg packages) with decent latency (20-40ms latency at peaks) and no packet loss. That is also with quite a few VOIP users who would be howling if the service didn't work.BTW, Canopy radios at $160 are double the cost of a NanoStation. Canopy with a reflector is 3x the cost of a Bullet5 and 26db grid. StarOS APs are at least 1/4th the cost of a comparable Canopy AP. Matt Larsenvistabeam.comTravis Johnson wrote:> Matt,>> I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure > we need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could > have setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all > different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal > bandwidth and latency at AF09?>> And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 > stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using > StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and > we connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the > other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the > upload to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, the > other client has very high latency, very bad download speeds, etc.>> As for price on Canopy vs. 802.1 1... things are not always as they > seem. I know of a large Canopy operator that is buying radios for $160 > each. ;)>> And, we have Trango AP's that only deliver 5Mbps total with 128 > clients and we deliver 4ms latency to every single client.>> Travis> Microserv>> Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:>> Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to >> scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can >> be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10,000 plus >> users on their 802.11 based networks scaling right up to the same size >> as any Canopy or Trango network. You might not be able to get to 150 >> subs per AP, but you can certainly hit 50-75 per sector and offer >> service that is damn close and a far sight cheaper than what Canopy will >> do. I would take a StarOS a/b/g network over a Canopy system every day >> of the week. As far as problems at AF09 - that is what you get when Canopy guys are >> running an 802.11 n etwork. If I was running it with the proven >> equipment and deployment methods that many of us use on 802.11 networks, >> there would not have been any such problems. Just because the AF09 >> guys couldn't figure it out (or more likely didn't bother to try) >> doesn't mean that it can't be done right. Matt Larsen>> vistabeam.com>> Travis Johnson wrote:>> >>> The problem will be that they are still plain 802.11 technology. There >>> is no polling or ARQ or FEC or anything else that makes technology like >>> Trango, Canopy and others work so well. We pulled all of our 802.11 >>> stuff down over 5 years ago. It does NOT scale. You will never get an AP >>> with reliable, consistent service with more than 20 users.>> In fact, I think we witnessed this at AF09. Everyone connected to the >>> same AP (48 I think was the count) and we continually got disconnected >>> and the speeds and latency were terrible. Could there be a better "real >>> world" experience than that? :)>> Travis>>> Microserv>> Jerry Richardson wrote:>>> >>> All I can do is shake my head. Ubiquity seems to have acquired some Area51 technology. __ Jerry Richardso
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
OK, what is AF09? So I'm just a dumb country boy. Ron Wallace Hahnron, Inc. 220 S. Jackson Dt. Addison, MI 49220 Phone: (517)547-8410 Mobile: (517)270-2410 e-mail: rwall...@newgenet.net rwall...@tigernet.bz -Original Message- From: Matt Larsen - Lists [mailto:li...@manageisp.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 04:44 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... Travis,Ok, I'm game.First of all, a plain 802.11g wireless AP should be thrown in the junk pile and replaced with StarOS or MT. Depending on the quality of signal and modulation rates from the majority of the users, I would have also removed some of the higher mods to reduce rate shifts. And then, I would have set up bandwidth profiles for each user to something in the 1meg down/512K up range. That would pretty much fix the bandwidth and latency problem.When I do your upload test, I don't have the same problems. I do bandwidth control in the access point, and with upload rates set to half of the download rates, I have no problem putting 50 to 75 users on one AP and still provide good download speeds (1meg/2meg/4meg packages) with decent latency (20-40ms latency at peaks) and no packet loss. That is also with quite a few VOIP users who would be howling if the service didn't work.BTW, Canopy radios at $160 are double the cost of a NanoStation. Canopy with a reflector is 3x the cost of a Bullet5 and 26db grid. StarOS APs are at least 1/4th the cost of a comparable Canopy AP. Matt Larsenvistabeam.comTravis Johnson wrote:> Matt,>> I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure > we need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could > have setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all > different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal > bandwidth and latency at AF09?>> And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 > stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using > StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and > we connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the > other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the > upload to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, the > other client has very high latency, very bad download speeds, etc.>> As for price on Canopy vs. 802.1 1... things are not always as they > seem. I know of a large Canopy operator that is buying radios for $160 > each. ;)>> And, we have Trango AP's that only deliver 5Mbps total with 128 > clients and we deliver 4ms latency to every single client.>> Travis> Microserv>> Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:>> Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to >> scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can >> be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10,000 plus >> users on their 802.11 based networks scaling right up to the same size >> as any Canopy or Trango network. You might not be able to get to 150 >> subs per AP, but you can certainly hit 50-75 per sector and offer >> service that is damn close and a far sight cheaper than what Canopy will >> do. I would take a StarOS a/b/g network over a Canopy system every day >> of the week. As far as problems at AF09 - that is what you get when Canopy guys are >> running an 802.11 n etwork. If I was running it with the proven >> equipment and deployment methods that many of us use on 802.11 networks, >> there would not have been any such problems. Just because the AF09 >> guys couldn't figure it out (or more likely didn't bother to try) >> doesn't mean that it can't be done right. Matt Larsen>> vistabeam.com>> Travis Johnson wrote:>> >>> The problem will be that they are still plain 802.11 technology. There >>> is no polling or ARQ or FEC or anything else that makes technology like >>> Trango, Canopy and others work so well. We pulled all of our 802.11 >>> stuff down over 5 years ago. It does NOT scale. You will never get an AP >>> with reliable, consistent service with more than 20 users.>> In fact, I think we witnessed this at AF09. Everyone connected to the >>> same AP (48 I think was the count) and we continually got disconnected >>> and the speeds and latency were terrible. Could there be a better "real >>> world" experience than that? :)>> Travis>>> Microserv>> Jerry Richardson wrote:>>> >>> All I can do is shake my head. Ubiquity seems to have acquired some Area51 technology. __ Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of rea...@muddyfrogwater.us Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 3:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... I deployed my first Bull
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
Uh oh...we've started a holy war... Here's my philosophy these days...*NOTHING* works perfectly, but *ANYTHING* can be made to work -> if there's will (and a little bit of ingenuity and duct tape), there's a way =) That being said, there's a case to be made, especially when we're talking scale here, when the "wizard of oz" can no longer run everything, but crews of "dumb minions" have taken over, that a case for paying a premium on hardware can be made due to the labor cost savings for stuff that just works "out of the box" vs. stuff that requires "some tweaks" and "tribal knowledge" to make work properly Heck, we paid a premium and converted our infrastructure to Windows and Cisco b/c the benefit of hiring someone who had certs and could be productive in 2 weeks of hiring was worth the extra premium than trying to wait & train a new guy for 6-9 months... My 2 cents On another topic, I've been looking at Cat-5 cable for CPE installs, and am trying to figure out what color everyone likes best Talking about the cheap, outdoor rated unshielded Cat-5e Me personally, I would have thought black, but I'm finding many seem to prefer white/beige b/c it blends in better with vinyl siding Thoughts? -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10,000 plus users on their 802.11 based networks scaling right up to the same size as any Canopy or Trango network.You might not be able to get to 150 subs per AP, but you can certainly hit 50-75 per sector and offer service that is damn close and a far sight cheaper than what Canopy will do. I would take a StarOS a/b/g network over a Canopy system every day of the week. As far as problems at AF09 - that is what you get when Canopy guys are running an 802.11 network. If I was running it with the proven equipment and deployment methods that many of us use on 802.11 networks, there would not have been any such problems.Just because the AF09 guys couldn't figure it out (or more likely didn't bother to try) doesn't mean that it can't be done right. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: > The problem will be that they are still plain 802.11 technology. There > is no polling or ARQ or FEC or anything else that makes technology like > Trango, Canopy and others work so well. We pulled all of our 802.11 > stuff down over 5 years ago. It does NOT scale. You will never get an AP > with reliable, consistent service with more than 20 users. > > In fact, I think we witnessed this at AF09. Everyone connected to the > same AP (48 I think was the count) and we continually got disconnected > and the speeds and latency were terrible. Could there be a better "real > world" experience than that? :) > > Travis > Microserv > > Jerry Richardson wrote: > >> All I can do is shake my head. Ubiquity seems to have acquired some >> Area51 technology. >> >> >> >> >> __ >> Jerry Richardson >> airCloud Communications >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of rea...@muddyfrogwater.us >> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 3:42 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... >> >> I deployed my first Bullet5 today. Not the high power, but the >> standard. >> >> throughput testing showed insignificant difference between my >> Star-OS/WAR1 >> combo and the Bullet. The AP shows that the Bullet has active >> compression >> and fast frames that functions with my star-os access point. >> >> I have not tried the narrower channels to see if they're compatible with >> my star-os AP's. >> >> They have been certified with up to 30 db antennas. >> >> Summary... 1 bullet5, 1 pacwireless 25 db grid w/pigtail, 1 universal >> mount = very cheap 5 ghz cpe - about $130 - 140 complete. Even >> nicer??? >> >> The bullet slides down INTO the universal mount pipe, becoming invisible >> after you mount and aim it. >> >> Just FYI... The Bullet does NAT and has a DHCP server built in. No >> need >> for a router, allows you to have a fully routed network. >> >> Opinion I like them. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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/pipe
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... - OFFLIST
No, I don't have a target for Motorola Canopy, we sell it, and it represents less than 3% of our total sales volume. Having those stock levels of various items and sales volumes is rather easy though, and we have maintained them after our first year with steady growth. We're mostly MikroTik/UBNT/Vecima/ARC/PAC/Teletronics, but we do sell quite a few other products. We just focus on our core products which we are already direct on. My point was that there are many wisps out there claiming a certain price, but really never reach those volumes or ascertain those pricing levels. I know of a WISP in Texas who had a tech claiming $160 per CPE pricing, then when I approached their purchasing department for ancillary products, they were paying 1% over my cost, through a deal with Motorola, far from $160 per CPE. They currently have about 40k subscribers and add between 600-1k per month. I've been in this league almost two years...and yet I haven't been in this market as long as you, I do know and understand the game. Having been to multiple distributors like the ones you mentioned, our inventory levels are close to similar in comparison. Regards, Chuck Hogg Avolutia, LLC 502-722-9292 ch...@avolutia.com http://www.avolutia.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Charles Wu (CTI) Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 4:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... - OFFLIST Chuck, Just a word of friendly advice The Canopy / WISP resale world is a competitive and brutal space -- if your plan is to target WISPs, I'd recommend that you save the trouble and find another vertical market or product The "reseller" cost that you see isn't that far off of what "street WISP" pricing is for anyone who's deploying in any decent quantity -- that's just the nature of the business You need a minimum of $5 million / year in volume and probably close to $500k in stock to "get in the WISP game" -- but at this point in the game, you're in a chicken & egg situation, since I'm not quite sure how you'd build up that volume, given that (1) most WISPs already have pre-existing relationships with their current suppliers, and inertia is an extremely hard thing to break (2) any new WISP you spend the time to get going that results in any decent volume will probably get swiped by the "bigger guys" because it ultimately all boils down to price and financing -- and they have the volume and pricing advantage to take you out of the market There's a reason why Streakwave went back to focus on Mikrotik / Ubiquiti 2 years ago Irregardless, whether or not you choose to listen to my advice, Welcome to the big leagues =) -Charles P.S. -- we need to sync up again sometime and talk about how IP Pay can save you $$$ -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Hogg Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 11:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... The cheapest I have ever seen large bulk distributor pricing with buyback money is a little over $200 per SM except 900Mhz. Now, if you are looking at the Lite version SM's they certainly can be had for cheaper. All these WISPs claiming cheaper price is not telling the truth. Even Motorola disputes the price when questioned (yes I am a distributor of Motorola products too). Ask that WISP to buy 100 packs from them for me, I'll pay a 10% premium! Also, I agree with both of you here. Having both 900MHz Trango and 2.4Ghz MikroTik, the Trango performs very impressively with >50 clients per AP. I have a few AP's that are currently 100+ and they don't drop packets, and the latency is great in comparison. However, properly maintained 802.11 networks do pretty well also, but I don't see them outperforming what Trango does on clients per AP level. Regards, Chuck Hogg Avolutia, LLC 502-722-9292 ch...@avolutia.com http://www.avolutia.com http://www.shelbybb.com From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 10:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... Matt, I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure we need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could have setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal bandwidth and latency at AF09? And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and we connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the upload to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, t
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... - OFFLIST
Is there a way to add a rule to the mail server that bounces messages with OFFLIST in the title? Brian Charles Wu (CTI) wrote: Ugh...the problem is list rules -- there are some mailing lists when I click reply, it goes back straight to the sender, and need to click reply-all to get to everyone, and others where clicking reply gets me back on the list (and I need to go change to "to" topic) I should probably just go to bed instead of posting at 2 AM -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 5:59 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... - OFFLIST This seems to be happening a lot lately :-) Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Charles Wu (CTI) Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 2:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... - OFFLIST Chuck, Just a word of friendly advice The Canopy / WISP resale world is a competitive and brutal space -- if your plan is to target WISPs, I'd recommend that you save the trouble and find another vertical market or product The "reseller" cost that you see isn't that far off of what "street WISP" pricing is for anyone who's deploying in any decent quantity -- that's just the nature of the business You need a minimum of $5 million / year in volume and probably close to $500k in stock to "get in the WISP game" -- but at this point in the game, you're in a chicken & egg situation, since I'm not quite sure how you'd build up that volume, given that (1) most WISPs already have pre-existing relationships with their current suppliers, and inertia is an extremely hard thing to break (2) any new WISP you spend the time to get going that results in any decent volume will probably get swiped by the "bigger guys" because it ultimately all boils down to price and financing -- and they have the volume and pricing advantage to take you out of the market There's a reason why Streakwave went back to focus on Mikrotik / Ubiquiti 2 years ago Irregardless, whether or not you choose to listen to my advice, Welcome to the big leagues =) -Charles P.S. -- we need to sync up again sometime and talk about how IP Pay can save you $$$ -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Hogg Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 11:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... The cheapest I have ever seen large bulk distributor pricing with buyback money is a little over $200 per SM except 900Mhz. Now, if you are looking at the Lite version SM's they certainly can be had for cheaper. All these WISPs claiming cheaper price is not telling the truth. Even Motorola disputes the price when questioned (yes I am a distributor of Motorola products too). Ask that WISP to buy 100 packs >from them for me, I'll pay a 10% premium! Also, I agree with both of you here. Having both 900MHz Trango and 2.4Ghz MikroTik, the Trango performs very impressively with >50 clients per AP. I have a few AP's that are currently 100+ and they don't drop packets, and the latency is great in comparison. However, properly maintained 802.11 networks do pretty well also, but I don't see them outperforming what Trango does on clients per AP level. Regards, Chuck Hogg Avolutia, LLC 502-722-9292 ch...@avolutia.com http://www.avolutia.com http://www.shelbybb.com From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 10:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... Matt, I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure we need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could have setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal bandwidth and latency at AF09? And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and we connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the upload to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, the other client has very high latency, very bad download speeds, etc. As for price on Canopy vs. 802.11... things are not always as they seem. I know of a large Canopy operator that is buying radios for $160 each. ;) And, we have Trango AP's that only deliver 5Mbps total with 128 clients and we deliver 4ms latency to every single client. Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Sorry Travis, but you are dead wron
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... - OFFLIST
Ugh...the problem is list rules -- there are some mailing lists when I click reply, it goes back straight to the sender, and need to click reply-all to get to everyone, and others where clicking reply gets me back on the list (and I need to go change to "to" topic) I should probably just go to bed instead of posting at 2 AM -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 5:59 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... - OFFLIST This seems to be happening a lot lately :-) Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com >-Original Message- >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >Behalf Of Charles Wu (CTI) >Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 2:17 AM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... - OFFLIST > >Chuck, > >Just a word of friendly advice > >The Canopy / WISP resale world is a competitive and brutal space -- if >your plan is to target WISPs, I'd recommend that you save the trouble >and find another vertical market or product > >The "reseller" cost that you see isn't that far off of what "street >WISP" pricing is for anyone who's deploying in any decent quantity -- >that's just the nature of the business > >You need a minimum of $5 million / year in volume and probably close to >$500k in stock to "get in the WISP game" -- but at this point in the >game, you're in a chicken & egg situation, since I'm not quite sure how >you'd build up that volume, given that > >(1) most WISPs already have pre-existing relationships with their >current suppliers, and inertia is an extremely hard thing to break > >(2) any new WISP you spend the time to get going that results in any >decent volume will probably get swiped by the "bigger guys" because it >ultimately all boils down to price and financing -- and they have the >volume and pricing advantage to take you out of the market > >There's a reason why Streakwave went back to focus on Mikrotik / >Ubiquiti 2 years ago > >Irregardless, whether or not you choose to listen to my advice, Welcome >to the big leagues =) > >-Charles > >P.S. -- we need to sync up again sometime and talk about how IP Pay can >save you $$$ > >-Original Message- >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >Behalf Of Chuck Hogg >Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 11:13 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... > >The cheapest I have ever seen large bulk distributor pricing with >buyback money is a little over $200 per SM except 900Mhz. Now, if you >are looking at the Lite version SM's they certainly can be had for >cheaper. All these WISPs claiming cheaper price is not telling the >truth. Even Motorola disputes the price when questioned (yes I am a >distributor of Motorola products too). Ask that WISP to buy 100 packs >from them for me, I'll pay a 10% premium! > > > >Also, I agree with both of you here. Having both 900MHz Trango and >2.4Ghz MikroTik, the Trango performs very impressively with >50 clients >per AP. I have a few AP's that are currently 100+ and they don't drop >packets, and the latency is great in comparison. However, properly >maintained 802.11 networks do pretty well also, but I don't see them >outperforming what Trango does on clients per AP level. > > > >Regards, > >Chuck Hogg > >Avolutia, LLC >502-722-9292 >ch...@avolutia.com > >http://www.avolutia.com > >http://www.shelbybb.com > > > >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >Behalf Of Travis Johnson >Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 10:34 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... > > > >Matt, > >I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure we >need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could have >setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all >different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal bandwidth >and latency at AF09? > >And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 >stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using >StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and we >connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the >other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the upload >to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, the other client >has very high latency, very bad download speeds, etc. > >As for price on Canopy vs. 802.11... things are not always as they seem. >I know of a large Canopy operator that is buying radios for $160 each. >;) > >And, we have Trango AP's that only deliver 5Mbps total with 128 clients >and we deliver 4ms latency to every single client. > >Travis >Microserv > >Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: > >Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to >scale b
Re: [WISPA] We're being DDOS'd by DC!
I just found this in an article. It points out a couple other events that cause high trafficOne of them coming up in March Brian "According to the Silicon Alley Insider based on data from Akamai the early numbers for the inauguration among news web sites was that they saw 5.4 million visitors per minute. Peak total visitors per minute were 5.4 million, making it one of the top five events ever, trailing both the 2008 presidential election (#1 with 8.572 million visitors per minute at peak traffic) as well as the first day of the NCAA college basketball tournament last March (#3 with 7.01 million visitors/minute )." David E. Smith wrote: Not really, but is everyone else seeing lots of extra traffic from people streaming inauguration-related events in DC? My network is pulling basically double the traffic of a "normal" Tuesday. (There's a lesson about capacity planning in here somewhere...) David Smith MVN.net 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] UBNT Bullet5 review... - OFFLIST
This seems to be happening a lot lately :-) Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com >-Original Message- >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >Behalf Of Charles Wu (CTI) >Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 2:17 AM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... - OFFLIST > >Chuck, > >Just a word of friendly advice > >The Canopy / WISP resale world is a competitive and brutal space -- if >your plan is to target WISPs, I'd recommend that you save the trouble >and find another vertical market or product > >The "reseller" cost that you see isn't that far off of what "street >WISP" pricing is for anyone who's deploying in any decent quantity -- >that's just the nature of the business > >You need a minimum of $5 million / year in volume and probably close to >$500k in stock to "get in the WISP game" -- but at this point in the >game, you're in a chicken & egg situation, since I'm not quite sure how >you'd build up that volume, given that > >(1) most WISPs already have pre-existing relationships with their >current suppliers, and inertia is an extremely hard thing to break > >(2) any new WISP you spend the time to get going that results in any >decent volume will probably get swiped by the "bigger guys" because it >ultimately all boils down to price and financing -- and they have the >volume and pricing advantage to take you out of the market > >There's a reason why Streakwave went back to focus on Mikrotik / >Ubiquiti 2 years ago > >Irregardless, whether or not you choose to listen to my advice, Welcome >to the big leagues =) > >-Charles > >P.S. -- we need to sync up again sometime and talk about how IP Pay can >save you $$$ > >-Original Message- >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >Behalf Of Chuck Hogg >Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 11:13 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... > >The cheapest I have ever seen large bulk distributor pricing with >buyback money is a little over $200 per SM except 900Mhz. Now, if you >are looking at the Lite version SM's they certainly can be had for >cheaper. All these WISPs claiming cheaper price is not telling the >truth. Even Motorola disputes the price when questioned (yes I am a >distributor of Motorola products too). Ask that WISP to buy 100 packs >from them for me, I'll pay a 10% premium! > > > >Also, I agree with both of you here. Having both 900MHz Trango and >2.4Ghz MikroTik, the Trango performs very impressively with >50 clients >per AP. I have a few AP's that are currently 100+ and they don't drop >packets, and the latency is great in comparison. However, properly >maintained 802.11 networks do pretty well also, but I don't see them >outperforming what Trango does on clients per AP level. > > > >Regards, > >Chuck Hogg > >Avolutia, LLC >502-722-9292 >ch...@avolutia.com > >http://www.avolutia.com > >http://www.shelbybb.com > > > >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >Behalf Of Travis Johnson >Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 10:34 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... > > > >Matt, > >I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure we >need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could have >setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all >different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal bandwidth >and latency at AF09? > >And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 >stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using >StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and we >connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the >other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the upload >to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, the other client >has very high latency, very bad download speeds, etc. > >As for price on Canopy vs. 802.11... things are not always as they seem. >I know of a large Canopy operator that is buying radios for $160 each. >;) > >And, we have Trango AP's that only deliver 5Mbps total with 128 clients >and we deliver 4ms latency to every single client. > >Travis >Microserv > >Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: > >Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to >scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can > >be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10,000 plus >users on their 802.11 based networks scaling right up to the same size >as any Canopy or Trango network.You might not be able to get to 150 >subs per AP, but you can certainly hit 50-75 per sector and offer >service that is damn close and a far sight cheaper than what Canopy will > >do. I would take a StarOS a/b/g network over a Canopy system every day >of the week. > >As far as problems at AF09 - that is what you get when Canopy guys are
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
Travis, Ok, I'm game. First of all, a plain 802.11g wireless AP should be thrown in the junk pile and replaced with StarOS or MT.Depending on the quality of signal and modulation rates from the majority of the users, I would have also removed some of the higher mods to reduce rate shifts. And then, I would have set up bandwidth profiles for each user to something in the 1meg down/512K up range. That would pretty much fix the bandwidth and latency problem. When I do your upload test, I don't have the same problems. I do bandwidth control in the access point, and with upload rates set to half of the download rates, I have no problem putting 50 to 75 users on one AP and still provide good download speeds (1meg/2meg/4meg packages) with decent latency (20-40ms latency at peaks) and no packet loss. That is also with quite a few VOIP users who would be howling if the service didn't work. BTW, Canopy radios at $160 are double the cost of a NanoStation. Canopy with a reflector is 3x the cost of a Bullet5 and 26db grid. StarOS APs are at least 1/4th the cost of a comparable Canopy AP. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: > Matt, > > I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure > we need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could > have setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all > different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal > bandwidth and latency at AF09? > > And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 > stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using > StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and > we connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the > other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the > upload to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, the > other client has very high latency, very bad download speeds, etc. > > As for price on Canopy vs. 802.11... things are not always as they > seem. I know of a large Canopy operator that is buying radios for $160 > each. ;) > > And, we have Trango AP's that only deliver 5Mbps total with 128 > clients and we deliver 4ms latency to every single client. > > Travis > Microserv > > Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: >> Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to >> scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can >> be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10,000 plus >> users on their 802.11 based networks scaling right up to the same size >> as any Canopy or Trango network.You might not be able to get to 150 >> subs per AP, but you can certainly hit 50-75 per sector and offer >> service that is damn close and a far sight cheaper than what Canopy will >> do. I would take a StarOS a/b/g network over a Canopy system every day >> of the week. >> >> As far as problems at AF09 - that is what you get when Canopy guys are >> running an 802.11 network. If I was running it with the proven >> equipment and deployment methods that many of us use on 802.11 networks, >> there would not have been any such problems.Just because the AF09 >> guys couldn't figure it out (or more likely didn't bother to try) >> doesn't mean that it can't be done right. >> >> Matt Larsen >> vistabeam.com >> >> >> Travis Johnson wrote: >> >>> The problem will be that they are still plain 802.11 technology. There >>> is no polling or ARQ or FEC or anything else that makes technology like >>> Trango, Canopy and others work so well. We pulled all of our 802.11 >>> stuff down over 5 years ago. It does NOT scale. You will never get an AP >>> with reliable, consistent service with more than 20 users. >>> >>> In fact, I think we witnessed this at AF09. Everyone connected to the >>> same AP (48 I think was the count) and we continually got disconnected >>> and the speeds and latency were terrible. Could there be a better "real >>> world" experience than that? :) >>> >>> Travis >>> Microserv >>> >>> Jerry Richardson wrote: >>> >>> All I can do is shake my head. Ubiquity seems to have acquired some Area51 technology. __ Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of rea...@muddyfrogwater.us Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 3:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... I deployed my first Bullet5 today. Not the high power, but the standard. throughput testing showed insignificant difference between my Star-OS/WAR1 combo and the Bullet. The AP shows that the Bullet has active compression and fast frames that functions with my star-os access point. I have no
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... - OFFLIST
Chuck, Just a word of friendly advice The Canopy / WISP resale world is a competitive and brutal space -- if your plan is to target WISPs, I'd recommend that you save the trouble and find another vertical market or product The "reseller" cost that you see isn't that far off of what "street WISP" pricing is for anyone who's deploying in any decent quantity -- that's just the nature of the business You need a minimum of $5 million / year in volume and probably close to $500k in stock to "get in the WISP game" -- but at this point in the game, you're in a chicken & egg situation, since I'm not quite sure how you'd build up that volume, given that (1) most WISPs already have pre-existing relationships with their current suppliers, and inertia is an extremely hard thing to break (2) any new WISP you spend the time to get going that results in any decent volume will probably get swiped by the "bigger guys" because it ultimately all boils down to price and financing -- and they have the volume and pricing advantage to take you out of the market There's a reason why Streakwave went back to focus on Mikrotik / Ubiquiti 2 years ago Irregardless, whether or not you choose to listen to my advice, Welcome to the big leagues =) -Charles P.S. -- we need to sync up again sometime and talk about how IP Pay can save you $$$ -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Hogg Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 11:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... The cheapest I have ever seen large bulk distributor pricing with buyback money is a little over $200 per SM except 900Mhz. Now, if you are looking at the Lite version SM's they certainly can be had for cheaper. All these WISPs claiming cheaper price is not telling the truth. Even Motorola disputes the price when questioned (yes I am a distributor of Motorola products too). Ask that WISP to buy 100 packs from them for me, I'll pay a 10% premium! Also, I agree with both of you here. Having both 900MHz Trango and 2.4Ghz MikroTik, the Trango performs very impressively with >50 clients per AP. I have a few AP's that are currently 100+ and they don't drop packets, and the latency is great in comparison. However, properly maintained 802.11 networks do pretty well also, but I don't see them outperforming what Trango does on clients per AP level. Regards, Chuck Hogg Avolutia, LLC 502-722-9292 ch...@avolutia.com http://www.avolutia.com http://www.shelbybb.com From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 10:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... Matt, I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure we need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could have setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal bandwidth and latency at AF09? And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and we connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the upload to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, the other client has very high latency, very bad download speeds, etc. As for price on Canopy vs. 802.11... things are not always as they seem. I know of a large Canopy operator that is buying radios for $160 each. ;) And, we have Trango AP's that only deliver 5Mbps total with 128 clients and we deliver 4ms latency to every single client. Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10,000 plus users on their 802.11 based networks scaling right up to the same size as any Canopy or Trango network.You might not be able to get to 150 subs per AP, but you can certainly hit 50-75 per sector and offer service that is damn close and a far sight cheaper than what Canopy will do. I would take a StarOS a/b/g network over a Canopy system every day of the week. As far as problems at AF09 - that is what you get when Canopy guys are running an 802.11 network. If I was running it with the proven equipment and deployment methods that many of us use on 802.11 networks, there would not have been any such problems.Just because the AF09 guys couldn't figure it out (or more likely didn't bother to try) doesn't mean that it can't be done right. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: The problem will be that they are still plain 802.11 technology. There is no
