Re: [WISPA] 2.4ghz wattmeter

2009-03-20 Thread Bob Moldashel
Kurt, Forget the Bird. We banged our heads too much with those. besides they are too bulky and not really for microwave IMHO. Bet one of these: http://www.praxsym.com/t-meter.htm We have two and they save us a poop load of troubleshooting time. They are about $1k each but they are well

Re: [WISPA] 2.4ghz wattmeter

2009-03-20 Thread Bob Moldashel
Just to add if you get the Praxsym you can check SWR and cable loss on your antenna systems. Just FYI. Not knocking Varitronics just that they are only going to test power output of the equipment. Bob e...@wisp-router.com wrote: Problem with wifi stuff is it doesn't transmit if it don't

Re: [WISPA] 2.4ghz wattmeter

2009-03-20 Thread chris cooper
Get the Praxsym quad band meter if you do 900, 2.4 and 5Ghz Chris Cooper Intelliwave -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Bob Moldashel Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 8:43 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2.4ghz

Re: [WISPA] 2.4ghz wattmeter

2009-03-20 Thread Phil Curnutt
Used a Praxsym just last weekend. Had an AP lose half of its signal over night. Put the Praxsym between the radio and the antenna. Forward power 23dB, not the radio. SWR 6, should have been 1.5. Put up a new antenna and moved on down the road. Took more time to replace the omni than figure

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread Marlon K. Schafer
location location location and location I have towers that hit very close to your 1000 sqare miles (18 miles with 2 to 3 megs delivered via ptp radio). There are only 10 or so subs on that tower. We have other towers that cover over 700 square miles and they service less than 10 people.

Re: [WISPA] 2.4ghz wattmeter

2009-03-20 Thread Kurt Fankhauser
Wow that praxsym meter looks pretty good. How much for the tri band one? Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of chris cooper Sent:

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread Matt Liotta
According to the FCC you haven't deployed any 3.65 gear, so you must not be talking about the same radios I am. -Matt On Mar 18, 2009, at 6:33 PM, Travis Johnson wrote: We have a sector feeding 3 other towers that has been rock solid for 59 days now. Using a 10mhz channel, delivering

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread Kevin Suitor
We have customers worldwide who operate sectors typically with hundreds of residential clients with 2 Mbps downlink / 256 or 512 kbps uplink and some with who run entry level service (by NA standards) of 384 kbps downlink / 128 kbps uplink that have an average of 250 clients per sector with 6

Re: [WISPA] Aerial / Self-Support Cat5

2009-03-20 Thread Mark Nash
I have used these Dead End Grips for short aerial runs without messengers... http://www.arrisi.com/product_catalog/tw_docs/TWS%20Sec_E.pdf Page 16, part # PRF 003348 Arris is a cable company supplier, and you have to have a minimum of $250 order, but they carry many more installation items on

[WISPA] FWD: Congress to FCC to airwave licensees: Use it or lose it

2009-03-20 Thread Scottie Arnett
If this goes through, it may free up some of that much needed spectrum we WIPSs need. Scott -- Original Message -- From: d berns dbe...@panix.com Reply-To: Telecom Regulation the Internetcyberteleco...@listserv.aol.com Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread Travis Johnson
I have a single 3.65 Mikrotik system (RB411 with XR3-3.7 cards) feeding three remote towers. Rock solid. 60+ days now. 11Mbps. 18 miles. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: According to the FCC you haven't deployed any 3.65 gear, so you must not be talking about the same radios I am.

Re: [WISPA] Aerial / Self-Support Cat5

2009-03-20 Thread Gary Garrett
Be careful. If you go building to building with different power transformers, or even different meters, you can get current flow over the grounded messenger and or the shield in the cat 5. You may want to only ground at one end but the potential voltage will still be there at the other end and

Re: [WISPA] Aerial / Self-Support Cat5

2009-03-20 Thread D. Ryan Spott
I was thinking more along the lines of CPE - down the roof/wall to the house ground and then the Cat5 (without the messenger) goes into the house... Much like a direct-TV/Cableco install. ryan Gary Garrett wrote: Be careful. If you go building to building with different power transformers,

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread Gary Garrett
No, Ketchup is a vegetable, Rutabaga is cattle feed. George Rogato wrote: Jeff Booher wrote: Mike, This once again is not an apples to apples argument but rather apples to rutabega. Still fruit, but very different fruit :) I thought a rutabega was a vegitable.

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread Scottie Arnett
I think what Mike is getting at is that WIMAX(and every other PtMP wireless technology available today) is not going to give us the speed we need to compete with cable offering 10 - 20 Mbit to residential users...not to mention what fiber is going to do. Scottie -- Original Message

Re: [WISPA] Aerial / Self-Support Cat5

2009-03-20 Thread Gary Garrett
I thought you were talking about that but the other guy was talking pole to building so I brought that up. D. Ryan Spott wrote: I was thinking more along the lines of CPE - down the roof/wall to the house ground and then the Cat5 (without the messenger) goes into the house... Much like a

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread Mike Hammett
2 megs is yesterday's news. U-Verse is 18/1.5 FiOS is 50/20 Charter has 60/5 Comcast has 50/10 2 megs is 36 times faster than 56k. Charter is 30 times faster than that. Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired world? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread 3-dB Networks
Because speed isn't everything. Mesa went head to head with Cable and DSL for a long time... offering packages of 7Mb this or that. Our highest package was 2.5Mb/1Mb. Yet we still did a very respectful job, because we offered the best customer service around, and people liked using a local

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread David E. Smith
3-dB Networks wrote: I would challenge... is why does anyone need more than 2Mb at home? Now if I'm downloading files.. :-) I think you just answered your own question. David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You!

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread Scott Carullo
If I only got two megs at home I'd move. I have 35mb symmetrical connection I am fond of. A lot of people however in our neck of the woods wouldn't settle for anything less than 5-10 Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: David E. Smith

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread Matt Liotta
On Mar 20, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 2 megs is yesterday's news. U-Verse is 18/1.5 FiOS is 50/20 Charter has 60/5 Comcast has 50/10 2 megs is 36 times faster than 56k. Charter is 30 times faster than that. Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread 3-dB Networks
Well... I did but I didn't. You can have as big of a pipe into the world that you want. Heck our office has 45Mb symmetrical. But my downloads here are no faster at home because of the limits on the servers your downloading from... and heck just the internet in general. There is a point where

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread Matt Liotta
Might want to get a license for that. -Matt On Mar 20, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Travis Johnson wrote: I have a single 3.65 Mikrotik system (RB411 with XR3-3.7 cards) feeding three remote towers. Rock solid. 60+ days now. 11Mbps. 18 miles. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: According to

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread Mike Hammett
Others on the list have mentioned the exponential increase in video use. Those are multi megabit streams ran for hours on end. I believe someone reported that NetFlix peaked at 5 megabits. Why would I deploy gear that couldn't handle these next generation services? - Mike Hammett

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread Mike Hammett
I was referring to the magnitude in difference from what I'm being told to sell vs. what the competition is doing and what dial up is. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Matt Liotta

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread 3-dB Networks
Well the Canopy 430 series is going to do 42Mbps... but even then how well is that going to work... considering your clients are going to have to be within 2 miles. I don't think you should have a realistic expectation that wireless (in a point to multipoint environment) is going to match the

[WISPA] Rush!!! need fcc link!! related to 3.65

2009-03-20 Thread Gino Villarini
Anyone has a link or a pdf from the FCC thats states the following: registration and installation of a 3.65 station would not provide a 1st come 1 served right ... Please! i have a meeting that i need this ... cant find it Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread Mike Hammett
If I don't expect it, why will the manufacturers make it? They seem to be happy to court the guy offering 1 megabit out of a $8k radio when anything made in the past 8 years could do the same thing. Do I expect to take Joe mainstream away from Comcast? No. Do I want to be seen as the dialup

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread Mike Hammett
Yes, service. If you can't service their desire to watch NetFlix, they'll leave. I'm glad a few of you see where I'm coming from while the rest of you sit in awe. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com --

Re: [WISPA] Rush!!! need fcc link!! related to 3.65

2009-03-20 Thread David E. Smith
Gino Villarini wrote: registration and installation of a 3.65 station would not provide a 1st come 1 served right ... http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-56A1.pdf 31. Each terrestrial licensee in the 3650 MHz band will have a non-exclusive nationwide license and be

Re: [WISPA] [Motorola II] Rush!!! need fcc link!! related to 3.65

2009-03-20 Thread Gino Villarini
THANKS! Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: motorola-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:motorola-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of David E. Smith Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 3:15 PM To: WISPA

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread Kevin Suitor
Folks, I seem to have too much time on my hands since I'm on vacation. This thread prompted me to put a quick back of the napkin ROI analysis together to see which service options I'd want to be pushing on the market. What I did was review Bell Canada's service offer - why, because they offer

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread 3-dB Networks
Mike, I absolutely see where you are coming from. Internet usage is changing, and to keep up with it you have to offer higher throughput... at least at the base station/AP... to have a reasonable oversubscription rate. At the same time though I don't see how a vendor can create that magic 100Mb

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread Travis Johnson
Because I can service where NONE of those other services exist... and I have for 10+ years. Residential users don't need more than 1-2Mbps. Our 512k package is FASTER than the 3Mbps CableOne service in our area (as tested by ZD Lab's benchmark program). Travis Microserv Mike Hammett wrote:

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread reader
insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta mlio...@r337.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 7:53 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? I think you may be missing a couple of variables

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread Matt Liotta
On Mar 20, 2009, at 3:50 PM, rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: Mike Hammett and I both are watching huge amounts of investment being poured into WIMAX equipment that's designed to meet last year's bandwidth model and asking the same question.When are the WIMAX folks going to

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread Tom DeReggi
Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years behind the wired world? Depends who you are referring by stating wireless world. The WISP providers are surely NOT happy with that. They are just realistic about what they have available. And they are creative enough to understand that there

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread Jeff Booher
I think it was clarified earlier that with a wider channel you get a much greater reduction in effective range as well as increasing the required CINR to achieve maximum modulation. So while it could be made ( and I know of one company that did make a 20mhz channel wide wimax D product ) the

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread Blair Davis
Some simple numbers... $1700/month for 10Mbits. Much better than the $600 per 1.54Mbit I was paying out here. 1Mbit per Netflix or IPTV user. $170 cost of bandwidth per user. Users out here are not going to pay that. Period. The problem, out in the rural areas at least, is not delivering

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread sales
Um. Amen ! -Original Message- From: Blair Davis the...@wmwisp.net Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 8:11 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ? Some simple numbers... $1700/month for 10Mbits.  Much better than the $600 per 1.54Mbit I was paying

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread George Rogato
Kinda high If you are lucky and you have access to fiber consider this Cogent, if you buy a GigE port and commit to 200 megs, you can have it for $5.00 per meg, or minimum of $1,000.00 per month and that comes with a whopping 200 megs, if you need to exceed 200 megs, it's just $5.00 per meg.

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread Marlon K. Schafer
How do you want to count that Mike? Speed alone isn't adequate. If speed alone made a good purchase we'd all be driving ZR1 corvettes and Rouch Mustangs etc. Figure in cost per subscriber. Compute what people REALLY do with their internet not just how fast they can do it etc. Wireless is

Re: [WISPA] Aerial / Self-Support Cat5

2009-03-20 Thread George Rogato
Pretty good catalog Mark Has some great aerial illustrations on proper hardware. This week we hung out aerial fiber from our noc to the tank. It was a 550' span 275' across a big creek. We used figure 8 fiber with lashes and as well as a couple cable messenger clamps. I had to use a 12' surf

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread Travis Johnson
I have a quote from Level3 for $12.50 per meg and it's 10x the bandwidth that Cogent is... ;) Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: Kinda high If you are lucky and you have access to fiber consider this Cogent, if you buy a GigE port and commit to 200 megs, you can have it for

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread George Rogato
Have you compared them Travis? I would appreciate real world opinion. Reason is, our upstream on our last contract had us riding Level3 and when we renegotiated, we found ourselves riding cogent. I'm not so sure Level3 is much better. I can recall trace routing stuff and finding myself hoping

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread Blair Davis
I am on fiber. And this is the best deal I can get. George Rogato wrote: Kinda high If you are lucky and you have access to fiber consider this Cogent, if you buy a GigE port and commit to 200 megs, you can have it for $5.00 per meg, or minimum of $1,000.00 per month and that comes

Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

2009-03-20 Thread Travis Johnson
I have not compared them... but I have heard some big operators talk about problems with Cogent in the past. I just know that Level3 is very well connected (based on BGP sessions I have brought up). I'm not sure there is a way to determine "the best" provider out there. It's all a relative