Re: [WISPA] MikroTik N- 52 Mbits in a 20MHz channel

[Travis Johnson]

Hi,

How similar are the Rocketdishes compared with the PacWireless dishes?
We have over 100 of the Pac dishes, so I am just wondering how they
compare as far as mounting, build, alignment, etc.?

Travis
Microserv

George Morris wrote:

  Thought this might be interesting.
 
This is a live link on RouterOS 4.2 with no Nstreme.  Distance is 8.56
Kilometres in a fairly congested environment.
 
Getting a bit better than 50 megabits TCP, no Nstreme.
 
We really like the new Ubiquiti RocketDishes btw. Signal is -55.
 
George
 
 

 

Tough Broadband for a Tough Crowd!
GorillaNET.ca
10Mbits to your desk - coming soon.
George MorrisPresident/CEO
ghmor...@candlelight.ca  866-924-0530

 

  
  




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] [Board] USF changes?

[Faisal Imtiaz]

I absolutely agree with you Jack.
 
 

Faisal Imtiaz
Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net
Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232 

 

  _  

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 4:05 PM
To: WISPA Board Members List
Cc: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Board] USF changes?


Having the Board agree to hire someone to help first-time filers sounds fine
to me but I'll only support helping first-time WISPA MEMBERS file. 

I'm getting real tired of all the WISP freeloaders out there who are willing
to take as much free stuff as WISPA members are willing to shell out for but
who are not willing to step up and support WISPA for the tiny sum of $250
per year.  
.

Jack Unger
WISPA Director 


Marlon K. Schafer wrote: 

Brian could not have said this better.



We have GOT to file the 477's these days.  Yes it's non of the government's 

business.  But they WILL act on what they learn.  What's better, getting 

shot in the foot or getting shot in the head?  Either way, the gun WILL go 

off.  As the Rush song says, "If you choose not to decide, you still have 

made a choice!"  I choose the foot :-).



Many of you here will remember some of us telling you that not filing will 

hurt us in the long run.  Now we've got $7B in "free" money floating around,


most if it headed for OUR back yards and to our COMPETITORs.



Like it or not, the government's only real measure of what's going on out 

there is the 477.  It sucks, but it's reality.



I'm going to suggest that the board look at hiring someone to help first 

time filers figure the process out.  If we can get another thousand or two 

WISPs to file the 477 it'll do amazing things for our credibility.  More 

than any lobbying efforts we could possibly put forth otherwise.



The next filing time line is the July-December 09 period, due sometime after


Jan 1st.  Even flooding the FCC with attempts to file will say a lot.



Thoughts?

marlon



- Original Message - 

From: "Brian Webster"  


To: "WISPA General List"   

Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 11:28 AM

Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes?





  

The problem as I see it is that we are arguing the chicken and the 

egg.

While I understand why a WISP would not necessarily want to disclose their

network footprint, it has become very obvious that not disclosing the

information has created more harmful situations (BTOP/BIP funding as one

example) than would have been lost by letting the information out. The

legislative climate and the rate of change on broadband policy is so rapid

today, that waiting for some incentive to provide the information, to me 

is

more risk than disclosing the information. The FCC is indeed in the 

process

of looking at some of the ideas you mention in your email. It's happening

TODAY and policy/opinion/legislation is being crafted based on information

they can get their hands on now or in the very near future. I have been

contacted by the FCC about mapping broadband on a granular level and in

those conversations, USF reform was mentioned as one of the uses for the

mapping information. They already have a major data analysis company under

contract doing the modeling and considerations for USF reforms. The 

mapping

information will be a HUGE input and factor in some of the answers they 

will

derive from their studies. Many of these answers will be formulated in the

next 6 months or less. Waiting for legislative efforts to create incentive

to provide the information will more than likely be too late for the WISP

industry.



Creating this data and just giving it away is a huge burden on a WISP

no doubt, but competing with a rural telco who might be able, under USF

reforms, to get subsidies for their DSL lines as well as the voice lines

they get now, will certainly make it much tougher for a WISP to compete in 

a

rural market. Right now wireless enjoys a big advantage in the cost per

subscriber to deploy compared to others. The FCC knows this. They are also

dealing with a congress who is influenced by strong telco and cable lobby

groups. The WISP industry has none of that and what is worse, they have no

comprehensive data put together to help the FCC defend any position that

might give WISP's a stab at USF funding. If they have no hard data they 

have

a very difficult time rebutting any claims the the cable and telco 

industry

claim. Yet another good reason the WISP industry should be filing the Form

477 data





Thank You,

Brian Webster







On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Tom DeReggi 

  wrote:





Brian,



I argue to push legislation to give benefit to providers to map their 

data,

so its a no brainer to cooperate.

A Map is not needed to suggest and 

Re: [WISPA] About Hulu and Netflix and youtube...increaseddata delivery is here to stay.

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

The XR3 has FCC compliance.

* Michael Baird wrote, On 11/14/2009 12:24 AM:
> Ubiquity does not have any licensed 3.65 gear for the US, they have 
> XR3/Nano3's but they are for overseas customers.
>
> They have announced they will be coming out with 3.65/900 mhz airmax 
> gear 2nd Quarterish next year.
>
> Regards
> Michael Baird
>   
>> UBNT has fully licensed and approved 3.65 gear.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From: "Ralph" 
>> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 12:34 PM
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Cc: "WISPA General List" 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] About Hulu and Netflix and 
>> youtube...increaseddatadeliveryis here to stay.
>>
>>   
>> 
>>> What ubnt 3.65 are you saying you tried? Afaik ubnt has 3 gig but not
>>> on US channels. What country are you in?
>>>
>>> On Nov 13, 2009, at 1:15 PM, "MDK"  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>   




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] [Board] USF changes?

[Jack Unger]

Having the Board agree to hire someone to help first-time filers sounds
fine to me but I'll only support helping first-time WISPA MEMBERS file.


I'm getting real tired of all the WISP freeloaders out there who are
willing to take as much free stuff as WISPA members are willing to
shell out for but who are not willing to step up and support WISPA for
the tiny sum of $250 per year.
.

Jack Unger
WISPA Director 


Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

  Brian could not have said this better.

We have GOT to file the 477's these days.  Yes it's non of the government's 
business.  But they WILL act on what they learn.  What's better, getting 
shot in the foot or getting shot in the head?  Either way, the gun WILL go 
off.  As the Rush song says, "If you choose not to decide, you still have 
made a choice!"  I choose the foot :-).

Many of you here will remember some of us telling you that not filing will 
hurt us in the long run.  Now we've got $7B in "free" money floating around, 
most if it headed for OUR back yards and to our COMPETITORs.

Like it or not, the government's only real measure of what's going on out 
there is the 477.  It sucks, but it's reality.

I'm going to suggest that the board look at hiring someone to help first 
time filers figure the process out.  If we can get another thousand or two 
WISPs to file the 477 it'll do amazing things for our credibility.  More 
than any lobbying efforts we could possibly put forth otherwise.

The next filing time line is the July-December 09 period, due sometime after 
Jan 1st.  Even flooding the FCC with attempts to file will say a lot.

Thoughts?
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "Brian Webster" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes?


  
  
The problem as I see it is that we are arguing the chicken and the 
egg.
While I understand why a WISP would not necessarily want to disclose their
network footprint, it has become very obvious that not disclosing the
information has created more harmful situations (BTOP/BIP funding as one
example) than would have been lost by letting the information out. The
legislative climate and the rate of change on broadband policy is so rapid
today, that waiting for some incentive to provide the information, to me 
is
more risk than disclosing the information. The FCC is indeed in the 
process
of looking at some of the ideas you mention in your email. It's happening
TODAY and policy/opinion/legislation is being crafted based on information
they can get their hands on now or in the very near future. I have been
contacted by the FCC about mapping broadband on a granular level and in
those conversations, USF reform was mentioned as one of the uses for the
mapping information. They already have a major data analysis company under
contract doing the modeling and considerations for USF reforms. The 
mapping
information will be a HUGE input and factor in some of the answers they 
will
derive from their studies. Many of these answers will be formulated in the
next 6 months or less. Waiting for legislative efforts to create incentive
to provide the information will more than likely be too late for the WISP
industry.

Creating this data and just giving it away is a huge burden on a WISP
no doubt, but competing with a rural telco who might be able, under USF
reforms, to get subsidies for their DSL lines as well as the voice lines
they get now, will certainly make it much tougher for a WISP to compete in 
a
rural market. Right now wireless enjoys a big advantage in the cost per
subscriber to deploy compared to others. The FCC knows this. They are also
dealing with a congress who is influenced by strong telco and cable lobby
groups. The WISP industry has none of that and what is worse, they have no
comprehensive data put together to help the FCC defend any position that
might give WISP's a stab at USF funding. If they have no hard data they 
have
a very difficult time rebutting any claims the the cable and telco 
industry
claim. Yet another good reason the WISP industry should be filing the Form
477 data


Thank You,
Brian Webster



On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Tom DeReggi 
wrote:



  Brian,

I argue to push legislation to give benefit to providers to map their 
data,
so its a no brainer to cooperate.
A Map is not needed to suggest and conclude USF reform.
A Map is needed implemen new USF rules, such as tocollect USF funds, and
block recipients from collecting funds.

I hardly see the benefit in giving away to the coverage information 
without
first being given the benefit of giving it away.

The first step is get legislation to include broadband as eligible
recipients.
And step two is to get legislation to include that USF funds wont be 
given
to entities that are alread y served by wireless technology.
And Step3 is to get legislation to include what criteria considers an 
area
adequately served by wireless technology.
Or Step4 - to create t

Re: [WISPA] ever more bandwidth hungry

[richard sterne]

Or more revenue

Richard

2009/11/14 Marco Coelho :
> http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/09/11/13/2329235/Time-To-Ditch-Cable-For-Internet-TV
>
>
>
> --
> Marco C. Coelho
> Argon Technologies Inc.
> POB 875
> Greenville, TX 75403-0875
> 903-455-5036
>
>
> 
> 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] ever more bandwidth hungry

[Marco Coelho]

http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/09/11/13/2329235/Time-To-Ditch-Cable-For-Internet-TV



-- 
Marco C. Coelho
Argon Technologies Inc.
POB 875
Greenville, TX 75403-0875
903-455-5036



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] 100Mbps over 10 miles

[my_em...@webjogger.net]

Thanks for the in depth response Brad.
Were in upstate NY, and usually get a decent amount of rain per year. We 
do also get quite a bit of lightning, which makes me tend toward geting 
something that's all indoors or split IDU/ODU.
The link crosses the Hudson river diagonally for a about 1.5 miles, 
which also another factor to consider.

Thanks,
Jon

Brad Belton wrote:
> We really need more information in order to make any specific
> recommendations.  Interface type required and quantity.  Rain zone the link
> is going to be deployed in.  All indoor design, split IDU/ODU or all outdoor
> design preference.  Required/desired availability.  Antenna size
> limitations.  
>
>
> My recommendation would be Trango Giga or Apex.  We've been deploying them
> since their introduction with great results.  We have one of the first Giga
> 18GHz radio sets among others running without any problems.  We have serial
> #0001, 0002, 0005 & 0007 Giga 11GHz radios among several
> others that have all performed as expected.  Trango support has been
> responsive and helpful in the relatively few times we've needed their
> assistance.
>
> Trango is continuing to mature and develop their licensed line with the
> introduction of the GigaPro among other products.  They are on the same
> track to turn the licensed world upside down (with aggressive pricing and a
> strong feature set) just as they did the unlicensed 5GHz market with the
> introduction of the Sunstream 5800 series radio several years ago.  In my
> opinion they are worth a close look and strong consideration.
>
> Best,
>
>
> Brad  
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of my_em...@webjogger.net
> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 6:58 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] 100Mbps over 10 miles
>
> Looking to setup a 100Mbps or more link over 10 miles distance.
>
> Anyone have comments about what brand they think is good and reliable?
>
> It can be either licensed or unlicensed.
>
> So far I'm looking at Exalt, Trango, and Dragonwave, but do know which 
> to choose.
>
> Thanks,
>
>   


-- 
Jon Roux
Webjogger Internet Services
http://www.webjogger.net
845.757.4000





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] 100Mbps over 10 miles

[Travis Johnson]

I agree. I have installed almost 20 links of the Trango Giga and Apex 
units and they work great.

Travis
Microserv


Brad Belton wrote:
> We really need more information in order to make any specific
> recommendations.  Interface type required and quantity.  Rain zone the link
> is going to be deployed in.  All indoor design, split IDU/ODU or all outdoor
> design preference.  Required/desired availability.  Antenna size
> limitations.  
>
>
> My recommendation would be Trango Giga or Apex.  We've been deploying them
> since their introduction with great results.  We have one of the first Giga
> 18GHz radio sets among others running without any problems.  We have serial
> #0001, 0002, 0005 & 0007 Giga 11GHz radios among several
> others that have all performed as expected.  Trango support has been
> responsive and helpful in the relatively few times we've needed their
> assistance.
>
> Trango is continuing to mature and develop their licensed line with the
> introduction of the GigaPro among other products.  They are on the same
> track to turn the licensed world upside down (with aggressive pricing and a
> strong feature set) just as they did the unlicensed 5GHz market with the
> introduction of the Sunstream 5800 series radio several years ago.  In my
> opinion they are worth a close look and strong consideration.
>
> Best,
>
>
> Brad  
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of my_em...@webjogger.net
> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 6:58 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] 100Mbps over 10 miles
>
> Looking to setup a 100Mbps or more link over 10 miles distance.
>
> Anyone have comments about what brand they think is good and reliable?
>
> It can be either licensed or unlicensed.
>
> So far I'm looking at Exalt, Trango, and Dragonwave, but do know which 
> to choose.
>
> Thanks,
>
>   



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] Nearly 200 Mbit MikroTik link, was 100Mbps over 10 miles

[George Morris]

Chuck, that's certainly true with single stream TCP, but on these high
capacity links who is really saturating them with a single stream?

Please not that my tests with 20-stream TCP are pretty close to equal to UDP
tests, and I suggest that 20 streams or more is a reasonable approximation
of real-world traffic.

Of course that doesn't come close to the thousands of connections with
varying packet sizes running over a normal pipe, but we don't have the tools
to simulate that.

George 

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Chuck Hogg
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 12:04 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nearly 200 Mbit MikroTik link, was 100Mbps over 10
miles

When I discuss results, I always present the results using TCP not UDP.
Many times the TCP traffic is usually less (sometimes 30%+ less) than
the UDP tests.  

Jayson are you also basing your tests on UDP?  

I have multiple links that perform similar on UDP as well...I think you
will find though that more of your traffic is TCP and that is a major
impact on the performance of the link.

Regards,
Chuck Hogg
Shelby Broadband
502-722-9292
ch...@shelbybb.com
http://www.shelbybb.com


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of George Morris
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 11:21 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nearly 200 Mbit MikroTik link, was 100Mbps over 10
miles

OK, this isn't going to help much with the how, but if you're interested
I can probably dig up the configuration.

The limiting factor here was the RB411. If we had been using an AH I
suspect it would have been a lot faster.

You need really, really, good signal levels to make this work, and
virtually zero interference. That combination is problematic.

George 

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 10:31 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 100Mbps over 10 miles

I believe you but I want to know how to do it :)

On 11/14/09, George Morris  wrote:
> I'm with you on this.
>
> We have 30 mile links running 40MHz channels half-duplex with Nstreme 
> on 411AH/XR-5s that run a rock solid 65Mbits TCP and 75Mbits UDP. 
> That's without Nstreme dual, just regular old Nstreme half duplex.
>
> Getting closer brings the speeds up quite a bit.
>
> We saw some stunning results on RouterOS 4.0-beta3 on close-in links 
> using Nstreme. It was possible to get 200Mbits-plus on a pair of 
> RB600s talking
to
> each other. Unfortunately we've seen performance degrade steadily with

> builds newer than beta3, to the point where we're moving all our N 
> stuff back onto 3.30/.11a radios, at least until Nstreme is sorted out

> and reliable with N, which may be a while coming...
>
> Georgewireless/




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] Nearly 200 Mbit MikroTik link, was 100Mbps over 10 miles

[Chuck Hogg]

When I discuss results, I always present the results using TCP not UDP.
Many times the TCP traffic is usually less (sometimes 30%+ less) than
the UDP tests.  

Jayson are you also basing your tests on UDP?  

I have multiple links that perform similar on UDP as well...I think you
will find though that more of your traffic is TCP and that is a major
impact on the performance of the link.

Regards,
Chuck Hogg
Shelby Broadband
502-722-9292
ch...@shelbybb.com
http://www.shelbybb.com


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of George Morris
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 11:21 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nearly 200 Mbit MikroTik link, was 100Mbps over 10
miles

OK, this isn't going to help much with the how, but if you're interested
I can probably dig up the configuration.

The limiting factor here was the RB411. If we had been using an AH I
suspect it would have been a lot faster.

You need really, really, good signal levels to make this work, and
virtually zero interference. That combination is problematic.

George 

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 10:31 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 100Mbps over 10 miles

I believe you but I want to know how to do it :)

On 11/14/09, George Morris  wrote:
> I'm with you on this.
>
> We have 30 mile links running 40MHz channels half-duplex with Nstreme 
> on 411AH/XR-5s that run a rock solid 65Mbits TCP and 75Mbits UDP. 
> That's without Nstreme dual, just regular old Nstreme half duplex.
>
> Getting closer brings the speeds up quite a bit.
>
> We saw some stunning results on RouterOS 4.0-beta3 on close-in links 
> using Nstreme. It was possible to get 200Mbits-plus on a pair of 
> RB600s talking
to
> each other. Unfortunately we've seen performance degrade steadily with

> builds newer than beta3, to the point where we're moving all our N 
> stuff back onto 3.30/.11a radios, at least until Nstreme is sorted out

> and reliable with N, which may be a while coming...
>
> Georgewireless/



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] USF changes?

[Marlon K. Schafer]

Mark, we've been through all of this before.

You are RIGHT in that it's non of the government's business.  This is also 
NOT their problem.

But the fact that you and I (and probably most people here) think that 
doesn't change the facts.  Just because you wish your tire isn't flat or 
think that there's absolutely no reason for it to be flat doesn't make it 
unflat when it is in fact, flat.

We warned you (and others) what, at least 5 or 6 years ago now?  File the 
477 or someday the lack of data on what we're doing will come back to bite 
us in the rear ends.  Now we have the ARRA with it's billions of dollars 
floating around out there and it looks like much of that money will not only 
end up in the hands of our competitors, those competitors will be quasi 
government or flat out government entities!  And WE'RE helping them by 
sticking our heads in the sand when they ask us for data that anyone with 
any desire at all can figure out anyway.

Wake up already.  We are loosing this fight.  It's time for a new strategy.
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "MDK" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes?


> Yes, they do understand it.   You're not understanding the point.The
> telcos have big bucks to lobby with, and benefit the regulators.   We do
> not.Thus, we will NEVER be on their "list".We cannot get onto the
> top of the rolodex until we have millions with which to lobby, and can
> legally bribe a bunch of government agencies.
>
> There is no benefit to offering them data, free labor, etc.The 
> mandates
> will get larger, deeper, more and more costly, and the benefits promised 
> by
> certain individuals will never EVER happen.   And, should it ever reach 
> the
> point we actually pinch the telcos or cablecos enough for them to get
> concerned, they will call in the favors and have us obliterated.   Welcome
> to the new generation of thug politics in DC.   Just look what's happening
> to broadcast industry, the insurance industry, etc."You exist to 
> benefit
> our political aspirations.  The moment you fail in that regard, you will 
> be
> shredded, beaten, whipped, ruined, bankrupted and criminalized".   Either
> you're a political ally, or you're toast.
>
> This administration has removed all semblances of public service and has
> officially made it federal policy to conduct political wars upon the 
> people,
> businesses, enterprises, and even the states, if there is any political
> benefit to doing so.   It is federal malevolence at the highest level ever
> seen before in this country.   And it's getting worse by massive leaps and
> bounds.   Even appointees to the FCC have made this clear, in 
> demonstrating
> they believe in the direction and control of media and industry for the
> benefit of the political class.
>
> I argued years ago that surrendering our sovereignty to the feds was a
> recipe for industry disaster.   So far, I've been called stupid, extreme,
> radical, idiotic, mindless, and a kook for thinking so.   Trying being a
> health insurance company, doctor, investor, banker or any one of a number 
> of
> recently demonized groups.The White House has decided it can control
> your prices, wages, services, products, and policies, if ANY public money
> passes to you or even if you just happen to be in an industry that gets
> political attention.   Even if it just means a bailed out company did
> business with you.   Or, your service is considered "important" or
> "essential".
>
> They haven't gotten around to us yet, but we're in the crosshairs.   After
> all, we're in business to make a profit,  and anyone making a profit needs
> to be slapped down and destroyed.We should have stood for our
> independence, instead of lusting after public money, but no, principle is
> foolish, and money is all that matters, I was told.   Well, you got what 
> you
> wanted.   And I'm still around to say "I told you so".   The pursuit of
> favors, public money, loans, grants...  That was just too enticing, wasn't
> it?   The country's going to hell in a handbasket financially, because
> everyone's holding their hand out waiting for someone else's money to flow
> their way, courtesy of politicians.And lots of the leadership of WISPA
> was arguing and holding out the promise of "getting someone else's money"
> for the industry.
>
> Well, ALL of you, and ALL of the same greedy mentalities all through our
> industry and nation have set the situation up that it's all come home to
> roost, and the taxpayers are... well, paying for it.   Unemployment, 
> ruined
> retirements, bankruptcy, and so on.
>
> You should have stood on principle, not on greed.Best never invite me 
> to
> an "industry gathering" or I'll tell you what I really think.   It would 
> not
> be pretty.
>
> I haven't read this list in months, been busy.   But nothing has changed.
> We've still got WISPA leadership promoting the lustin

Re: [WISPA] USF changes?

[Marlon K. Schafer]

Brian could not have said this better.

We have GOT to file the 477's these days.  Yes it's non of the government's 
business.  But they WILL act on what they learn.  What's better, getting 
shot in the foot or getting shot in the head?  Either way, the gun WILL go 
off.  As the Rush song says, "If you choose not to decide, you still have 
made a choice!"  I choose the foot :-).

Many of you here will remember some of us telling you that not filing will 
hurt us in the long run.  Now we've got $7B in "free" money floating around, 
most if it headed for OUR back yards and to our COMPETITORs.

Like it or not, the government's only real measure of what's going on out 
there is the 477.  It sucks, but it's reality.

I'm going to suggest that the board look at hiring someone to help first 
time filers figure the process out.  If we can get another thousand or two 
WISPs to file the 477 it'll do amazing things for our credibility.  More 
than any lobbying efforts we could possibly put forth otherwise.

The next filing time line is the July-December 09 period, due sometime after 
Jan 1st.  Even flooding the FCC with attempts to file will say a lot.

Thoughts?
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "Brian Webster" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF changes?


> The problem as I see it is that we are arguing the chicken and the 
> egg.
> While I understand why a WISP would not necessarily want to disclose their
> network footprint, it has become very obvious that not disclosing the
> information has created more harmful situations (BTOP/BIP funding as one
> example) than would have been lost by letting the information out. The
> legislative climate and the rate of change on broadband policy is so rapid
> today, that waiting for some incentive to provide the information, to me 
> is
> more risk than disclosing the information. The FCC is indeed in the 
> process
> of looking at some of the ideas you mention in your email. It's happening
> TODAY and policy/opinion/legislation is being crafted based on information
> they can get their hands on now or in the very near future. I have been
> contacted by the FCC about mapping broadband on a granular level and in
> those conversations, USF reform was mentioned as one of the uses for the
> mapping information. They already have a major data analysis company under
> contract doing the modeling and considerations for USF reforms. The 
> mapping
> information will be a HUGE input and factor in some of the answers they 
> will
> derive from their studies. Many of these answers will be formulated in the
> next 6 months or less. Waiting for legislative efforts to create incentive
> to provide the information will more than likely be too late for the WISP
> industry.
>
> Creating this data and just giving it away is a huge burden on a WISP
> no doubt, but competing with a rural telco who might be able, under USF
> reforms, to get subsidies for their DSL lines as well as the voice lines
> they get now, will certainly make it much tougher for a WISP to compete in 
> a
> rural market. Right now wireless enjoys a big advantage in the cost per
> subscriber to deploy compared to others. The FCC knows this. They are also
> dealing with a congress who is influenced by strong telco and cable lobby
> groups. The WISP industry has none of that and what is worse, they have no
> comprehensive data put together to help the FCC defend any position that
> might give WISP's a stab at USF funding. If they have no hard data they 
> have
> a very difficult time rebutting any claims the the cable and telco 
> industry
> claim. Yet another good reason the WISP industry should be filing the Form
> 477 data
>
>
> Thank You,
> Brian Webster
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Tom DeReggi 
> wrote:
>
>> Brian,
>>
>> I argue to push legislation to give benefit to providers to map their 
>> data,
>> so its a no brainer to cooperate.
>> A Map is not needed to suggest and conclude USF reform.
>> A Map is needed implemen new USF rules, such as tocollect USF funds, and
>> block recipients from collecting funds.
>>
>> I hardly see the benefit in giving away to the coverage information 
>> without
>> first being given the benefit of giving it away.
>>
>> The first step is get legislation to include broadband as eligible
>> recipients.
>> And step two is to get legislation to include that USF funds wont be 
>> given
>> to entities that are alread y served by wireless technology.
>> And Step3 is to get legislation to include what criteria considers an 
>> area
>> adequately served by wireless technology.
>> Or Step4 - to create the equivellent of a ILEC, for a wireless provider.
>> Shouldn't there be a WiLEC status? :-)
>>
>> When Feds give us good reason to disclose our coverage, backed by passed
>> good legislation,  I assure you WISPs will be first in line to give it.
>>
>> Have the feds tell usthey wont give grants to new entrants wh

Re: [WISPA] MikroTik configuration for 65 Mbits TCP, was 100Mbps over 10 miles

[George Morris]

Nothing complicated. This link is 48.23 Kilometres.

Just using Nstreme with polling, exact size 3200.

The key seems to be clean spectrum, a decent signal level (about -57 in this
particular case), and a 411AH/XR-5 to get enough horsepower.

We are running 3.30 Wireless Test. The Wireless Test package helps a LOT.

There is roughly 4Mbits of background traffic running across this link in
addition to the bandwidth test numbers below.

Hope this helps. I'm very interested in how we can make this even faster!!!
George

Here is the output for UDP:
 >tool bandwidth-test 10.9.50.1
status: running
  duration: 41s
rx-current: 73.3Mbps
  rx-10-second-average: 73.4Mbps
  rx-total-average: 66.9Mbps
  lost-packets: 29
   random-data: no
 direction: receive
   rx-size: 1500

/interface> monitor-traffic wlan1
  rx-packets-per-second: 6151
rx-drops-per-second: 0
   rx-errors-per-second: 0
 rx-bits-per-second: 74.4Mbps
  tx-packets-per-second: 22
tx-drops-per-second: 0
   tx-errors-per-second: 0
 tx-bits-per-second: 39.7kbps


Here is the output for TCP:
 > tool bandwidth-test 10.9.50.1 protocol=tcp tcp-connection=20
status: running
  duration: 53s
rx-current: 61.6Mbps
  rx-10-second-average: 61.6Mbps
  rx-total-average: 61.4Mbps
   random-data: no
 direction: receive

 /interface> monitor-traffic wlan1
 rx-packets-per-second: 5779
rx-drops-per-second: 0
   rx-errors-per-second: 0
 rx-bits-per-second: 64.4Mbps
  tx-packets-per-second: 1033
tx-drops-per-second: 0
   tx-errors-per-second: 0
 tx-bits-per-second: 655.5kbps

Configuration for the AP side of this link:
/interface wireless
set 0 ack-timeout=dynamic adaptive-noise-immunity=ap-and-client-mode \
allow-sharedkey=no antenna-gain=0 antenna-mode=ant-a area="" arp=enabled
\
band=5ghz-turbo basic-rates-a/g=6Mbps burst-time=disabled comment="" \
compression=no country=canada default-ap-tx-limit=0 \
default-authentication=yes default-client-tx-limit=0
default-forwarding=\
yes dfs-mode=none disable-running-check=no disabled=no \
disconnect-timeout=3s frame-lifetime=0 frequency=5760 frequency-mode=\
manual-txpower hide-ssid=no hw-fragmentation-threshold=disabled \
hw-protection-mode=none hw-protection-threshold=0 hw-retries=15 l2mtu=\
2290 mac-address=00:15:6D:64:15:xx max-station-count=2007 mode=ap-bridge
\
mtu=1500 name=wlan1 noise-floor-threshold=default on-fail-retry-time=\
100ms periodic-calibration=default periodic-calibration-interval=60 \
preamble-mode=both proprietary-extensions=post-2.9.25 radio-name=\
"xxx" rate-set=configured scan-list=default \
security-profile=default ssid=xxx station-bridge-clone-mac=\
00:00:00:00:00:00 supported-rates-a/g=\
6Mbps,9Mbps,12Mbps,18Mbps,24Mbps,36Mbps,48Mbps,54Mbps tx-power=18 \
tx-power-mode=card-rates update-stats-interval=disabled wds-cost-range=\
50-150 wds-default-bridge=none wds-default-cost=100 wds-ignore-ssid=no \
wds-mode=disabled wmm-support=enabled

/interface wireless nstreme
set wlan1 comment="" disable-csma=no enable-nstreme=yes enable-polling=yes \
framer-limit=3200 framer-policy=exact-size
  

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 10:31 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 100Mbps over 10 miles

I believe you but I want to know how to do it :)

On 11/14/09, George Morris  wrote:
> I'm with you on this.
>
> We have 30 mile links running 40MHz channels half-duplex with Nstreme on
> 411AH/XR-5s that run a rock solid 65Mbits TCP and 75Mbits UDP. That's
> without Nstreme dual, just regular old Nstreme half duplex.
>
> Getting closer brings the speeds up quite a bit.
>
> We saw some stunning results on RouterOS 4.0-beta3 on close-in links using
> Nstreme. It was possible to get 200Mbits-plus on a pair of RB600s talking
to
> each other. Unfortunately we've seen performance degrade steadily with
> builds newer than beta3, to the point where we're moving all our N stuff
> back onto 3.30/.11a radios, at least until Nstreme is sorted out and
> reliable with N, which may be a while coming...
>
> George
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Jayson Baker
> Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 12:25 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 100Mbps over 10 miles
>
> Why <30 surprise you?  We have a very old Nstreme-Dual link going about 1
> mile and it has been getting 90Mbps w/ 1ms latency for YEARS.
> 90% of the problem with MikroTik is that people have no idea how to use
it.
>  You don't just plug it in and go.  We spent about 3 years learning,
> tweaking, deploying and testing.
>
> Anyway, to answer your question, yes the 1mile 180Mbps link is using R52N
> card

Re: [WISPA] 100Mbps over 10 miles

[Josh Luthman]

I believe you but I want to know how to do it :)

On 11/14/09, George Morris  wrote:
> I'm with you on this.
>
> We have 30 mile links running 40MHz channels half-duplex with Nstreme on
> 411AH/XR-5s that run a rock solid 65Mbits TCP and 75Mbits UDP. That's
> without Nstreme dual, just regular old Nstreme half duplex.
>
> Getting closer brings the speeds up quite a bit.
>
> We saw some stunning results on RouterOS 4.0-beta3 on close-in links using
> Nstreme. It was possible to get 200Mbits-plus on a pair of RB600s talking to
> each other. Unfortunately we've seen performance degrade steadily with
> builds newer than beta3, to the point where we're moving all our N stuff
> back onto 3.30/.11a radios, at least until Nstreme is sorted out and
> reliable with N, which may be a while coming...
>
> George
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Jayson Baker
> Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 12:25 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 100Mbps over 10 miles
>
> Why <30 surprise you?  We have a very old Nstreme-Dual link going about 1
> mile and it has been getting 90Mbps w/ 1ms latency for YEARS.
> 90% of the problem with MikroTik is that people have no idea how to use it.
>  You don't just plug it in and go.  We spent about 3 years learning,
> tweaking, deploying and testing.
>
> Anyway, to answer your question, yes the 1mile 180Mbps link is using R52N
> card, and Nstreme.
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Josh Luthman
> wrote:
>
>> With the 180meg 1 mile link - I assume that is also r5(2)n?  Are you doing
>> N
>> or nstreme?
>>
>> I'm surprised to see anything <30 megs when it comes to Mikrotik.
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
>> --- Albert Einstein
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Jayson Baker > >wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, 40MHz.
>> >
>> > We have a pair of RB333's that go about 1 mile, and get around 180Mbps.
>> >  Too
>> > bad they only have 100Mbps Ethernet.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Josh Luthman
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > 120 megs through one pair of r52n?!  I'm assuming this is 40mhz?
>> > >
>> > > Josh Luthman
>> > > Office: 937-552-2340
>> > > Direct: 937-552-2343
>> > > 1100 Wayne St
>> > > Suite 1337
>> > > Troy, OH 45373
>> > >
>> > > "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
>> > > --- Albert Einstein
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Jayson Baker > > > >wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I think we get something in the range of 120Mbps through a pair of
>> > > MikroTik
>> > > > 411's and R52N wireless cards with 3' PacWireless dishes at 12
> miles.
>> > > > 120Mbps on the wireless.  Those boards only have 100Mbps Ethernet,
> so
>> > > > that's
>> > > > a limiting factor.
>> > > >
>> > > > Total cost: <$1000
>> > > >
>> > > > If you're concerned that MT isn't "reliable" enough, spend $2000 and
>> > put
>> > > up
>> > > > 2 completely diverse links.
>> > > > Though, we have some MT's that have been in service since 2004 and
>> are
>> > > > still
>> > > > cranking away without issue.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:57 PM, my_em...@webjogger.net <
>> > > > my_em...@webjogger.net> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Looking to setup a 100Mbps or more link over 10 miles distance.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Anyone have comments about what brand they think is good and
>> > reliable?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It can be either licensed or unlicensed.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > So far I'm looking at Exalt, Trango, and Dragonwave, but do know
>> > which
>> > > > > to choose.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Jon Roux
>> > > > > Webjogger Internet Services
>> > > > > http://www.webjogger.net
>> > > > > 845.757.4000
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
> 
> 
>> > > > > 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/l

Re: [WISPA] 100Mbps over 10 miles

[George Morris]

I'm with you on this.

We have 30 mile links running 40MHz channels half-duplex with Nstreme on
411AH/XR-5s that run a rock solid 65Mbits TCP and 75Mbits UDP. That's
without Nstreme dual, just regular old Nstreme half duplex.

Getting closer brings the speeds up quite a bit.

We saw some stunning results on RouterOS 4.0-beta3 on close-in links using
Nstreme. It was possible to get 200Mbits-plus on a pair of RB600s talking to
each other. Unfortunately we've seen performance degrade steadily with
builds newer than beta3, to the point where we're moving all our N stuff
back onto 3.30/.11a radios, at least until Nstreme is sorted out and
reliable with N, which may be a while coming...

George 

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jayson Baker
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 12:25 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 100Mbps over 10 miles

Why <30 surprise you?  We have a very old Nstreme-Dual link going about 1
mile and it has been getting 90Mbps w/ 1ms latency for YEARS.
90% of the problem with MikroTik is that people have no idea how to use it.
 You don't just plug it in and go.  We spent about 3 years learning,
tweaking, deploying and testing.

Anyway, to answer your question, yes the 1mile 180Mbps link is using R52N
card, and Nstreme.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Josh Luthman
wrote:

> With the 180meg 1 mile link - I assume that is also r5(2)n?  Are you doing
> N
> or nstreme?
>
> I'm surprised to see anything <30 megs when it comes to Mikrotik.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
> --- Albert Einstein
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Jayson Baker  >wrote:
>
> > Yes, 40MHz.
> >
> > We have a pair of RB333's that go about 1 mile, and get around 180Mbps.
> >  Too
> > bad they only have 100Mbps Ethernet.
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Josh Luthman
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 120 megs through one pair of r52n?!  I'm assuming this is 40mhz?
> > >
> > > Josh Luthman
> > > Office: 937-552-2340
> > > Direct: 937-552-2343
> > > 1100 Wayne St
> > > Suite 1337
> > > Troy, OH 45373
> > >
> > > "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
> > > --- Albert Einstein
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Jayson Baker  > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think we get something in the range of 120Mbps through a pair of
> > > MikroTik
> > > > 411's and R52N wireless cards with 3' PacWireless dishes at 12
miles.
> > > > 120Mbps on the wireless.  Those boards only have 100Mbps Ethernet,
so
> > > > that's
> > > > a limiting factor.
> > > >
> > > > Total cost: <$1000
> > > >
> > > > If you're concerned that MT isn't "reliable" enough, spend $2000 and
> > put
> > > up
> > > > 2 completely diverse links.
> > > > Though, we have some MT's that have been in service since 2004 and
> are
> > > > still
> > > > cranking away without issue.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:57 PM, my_em...@webjogger.net <
> > > > my_em...@webjogger.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Looking to setup a 100Mbps or more link over 10 miles distance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyone have comments about what brand they think is good and
> > reliable?
> > > > >
> > > > > It can be either licensed or unlicensed.
> > > > >
> > > > > So far I'm looking at Exalt, Trango, and Dragonwave, but do know
> > which
> > > > > to choose.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jon Roux
> > > > > Webjogger Internet Services
> > > > > http://www.webjogger.net
> > > > > 845.757.4000
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


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


> > > > >
> > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> > > > >
> > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > > > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> > > > >
> > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


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


> > > >
> > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> > > >
> > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> > > >
> > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>


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

Re: [WISPA] 100Mbps over 10 miles

[my_em...@webjogger.net]

I'm actually considering some  power routers 732, from Link Tech with 
some Ubiquiti SR71-15 (mimo cards). The Power routers have Gig ethernet 
ports on them. Any one used this combination? Still way cheaper than a 
lot of the licensed stuff.

Thanks,
Jon

Jayson Baker wrote:
> I think we get something in the range of 120Mbps through a pair of MikroTik
> 411's and R52N wireless cards with 3' PacWireless dishes at 12 miles.
> 120Mbps on the wireless.  Those boards only have 100Mbps Ethernet, so that's
> a limiting factor.
>
> Total cost: <$1000
>
> If you're concerned that MT isn't "reliable" enough, spend $2000 and put up
> 2 completely diverse links.
> Though, we have some MT's that have been in service since 2004 and are still
> cranking away without issue.
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:57 PM, my_em...@webjogger.net <
> my_em...@webjogger.net> wrote:
>
>   
>> Looking to setup a 100Mbps or more link over 10 miles distance.
>>
>> Anyone have comments about what brand they think is good and reliable?
>>
>> It can be either licensed or unlicensed.
>>
>> So far I'm looking at Exalt, Trango, and Dragonwave, but do know which
>> to choose.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Jon Roux
>> Webjogger Internet Services
>> http://www.webjogger.net
>> 845.757.4000
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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/
>
>
>
>   


-- 
Jon Roux
Webjogger Internet Services
http://www.webjogger.net
845.757.4000




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] 100Mbps over 10 miles

[Chuck Hogg]

Share your tweaks...

Regards,
Chuck Hogg
Shelby Broadband
502-722-9292
ch...@shelbybb.com
http://www.shelbybb.com


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jayson Baker
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 1:27 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 100Mbps over 10 miles

Don't know what else to tell you.  I always find myself spending a lot
of
time defending the equipment we use, and how well it works for us.
 Especially on the Moto list (which can be expected, since we don't use
Moto
- haha).
Anyway... it works for us, and we're happy.  I'm sorry you don't believe
what I'm telling you, but I've also seen many people on the MT forum
posting
very similar (and even better) results.
I can tell you there are 3 very, very, very critical fields which must
be
tweaked.  Before those settings, you do get about 1/2 of what we see.
Hell,
we've even pushed 30Mbps half-duplex through a pair of 133's about 4
miles
apart.
It can be done, and we're doing it.  That's all I have to say about
that.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Josh Luthman
wrote:

> Which means we'd see 60 megs on 40 mhz links - you're able to get 50%
> more...
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
> --- Albert Einstein
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Jayson Baker  >wrote:
>
> > I said 40MHz.
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Josh Luthman
> > wrote:
> >
> > > You must have some secret that neither Butch nor I have - I've not
> > > seen any more then 30 megs on a single 20mhz wireless link.
> > >
> > > On 11/14/09, Jayson Baker  wrote:
> > > > Why <30 surprise you?  We have a very old Nstreme-Dual link
going
> about
> > 1
> > > > mile and it has been getting 90Mbps w/ 1ms latency for YEARS.
> > > > 90% of the problem with MikroTik is that people have no idea how
to
> use
> > > it.
> > > >  You don't just plug it in and go.  We spent about 3 years
learning,
> > > > tweaking, deploying and testing.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, to answer your question, yes the 1mile 180Mbps link is
using
> > R52N
> > > > card, and Nstreme.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Josh Luthman
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> With the 180meg 1 mile link - I assume that is also r5(2)n?
Are you
> > > doing
> > > >> N
> > > >> or nstreme?
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm surprised to see anything <30 megs when it comes to
Mikrotik.
> > > >>
> > > >> Josh Luthman
> > > >> Office: 937-552-2340
> > > >> Direct: 937-552-2343
> > > >> 1100 Wayne St
> > > >> Suite 1337
> > > >> Troy, OH 45373
> > > >>
> > > >> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
> > > >> --- Albert Einstein
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Jayson Baker <
> > jay...@spectrasurf.com
> > > >> >wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Yes, 40MHz.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > We have a pair of RB333's that go about 1 mile, and get
around
> > > 180Mbps.
> > > >> >  Too
> > > >> > bad they only have 100Mbps Ethernet.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Josh Luthman
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > 120 megs through one pair of r52n?!  I'm assuming this is
40mhz?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Josh Luthman
> > > >> > > Office: 937-552-2340
> > > >> > > Direct: 937-552-2343
> > > >> > > 1100 Wayne St
> > > >> > > Suite 1337
> > > >> > > Troy, OH 45373
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your
sources."
> > > >> > > --- Albert Einstein
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Jayson Baker <
> > > jay...@spectrasurf.com
> > > >> > > >wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > I think we get something in the range of 120Mbps through
a
> pair
> > of
> > > >> > > MikroTik
> > > >> > > > 411's and R52N wireless cards with 3' PacWireless dishes
at 12
> > > >> > > > miles.
> > > >> > > > 120Mbps on the wireless.  Those boards only have 100Mbps
> > Ethernet,
> > > >> > > > so
> > > >> > > > that's
> > > >> > > > a limiting factor.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Total cost: <$1000
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > If you're concerned that MT isn't "reliable" enough,
spend
> $2000
> > > and
> > > >> > put
> > > >> > > up
> > > >> > > > 2 completely diverse links.
> > > >> > > > Though, we have some MT's that have been in service since
2004
> > and
> > > >> are
> > > >> > > > still
> > > >> > > > cranking away without issue.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:57 PM, my_em...@webjogger.net <
> > > >> > > > my_em...@webjogger.net> wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > Looking to setup a 100Mbps or more link over 10 miles
> > distance.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Anyone have comments about what brand they think is
good and
> > > >> > reliable?
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > It can be either licensed or unlicensed.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > So far I'm looking at Exalt, Tra

Re: [WISPA] 100Mbps over 10 miles

[os10rules]

Can you tell me which 3 fields those are? Is there anyplace that you know of 
(wiki, manual) which describes the process?

Thanks!
Greg

On Nov 14, 2009, at 1:57 AM, Jayson Baker wrote:

> Don't know what else to tell you.  I always find myself spending a lot of
> time defending the equipment we use, and how well it works for us.
> Especially on the Moto list (which can be expected, since we don't use Moto
> - haha).
> Anyway... it works for us, and we're happy.  I'm sorry you don't believe
> what I'm telling you, but I've also seen many people on the MT forum posting
> very similar (and even better) results.
> I can tell you there are 3 very, very, very critical fields which must be
> tweaked.  Before those settings, you do get about 1/2 of what we see.  Hell,
> we've even pushed 30Mbps half-duplex through a pair of 133's about 4 miles
> apart.
> It can be done, and we're doing it.  That's all I have to say about that.
> 
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Josh Luthman
> wrote:
> 
>> Which means we'd see 60 megs on 40 mhz links - you're able to get 50%
>> more...
>> 
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>> 
>> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
>> --- Albert Einstein
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Jayson Baker >> wrote:
>> 
>>> I said 40MHz.
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Josh Luthman
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 You must have some secret that neither Butch nor I have - I've not
 seen any more then 30 megs on a single 20mhz wireless link.
 
 On 11/14/09, Jayson Baker  wrote:
> Why <30 surprise you?  We have a very old Nstreme-Dual link going
>> about
>>> 1
> mile and it has been getting 90Mbps w/ 1ms latency for YEARS.
> 90% of the problem with MikroTik is that people have no idea how to
>> use
 it.
> You don't just plug it in and go.  We spent about 3 years learning,
> tweaking, deploying and testing.
> 
> Anyway, to answer your question, yes the 1mile 180Mbps link is using
>>> R52N
> card, and Nstreme.
> 
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Josh Luthman
> wrote:
> 
>> With the 180meg 1 mile link - I assume that is also r5(2)n?  Are you
 doing
>> N
>> or nstreme?
>> 
>> I'm surprised to see anything <30 megs when it comes to Mikrotik.
>> 
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>> 
>> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
>> --- Albert Einstein
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Jayson Baker <
>>> jay...@spectrasurf.com
>>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Yes, 40MHz.
>>> 
>>> We have a pair of RB333's that go about 1 mile, and get around
 180Mbps.
>>> Too
>>> bad they only have 100Mbps Ethernet.
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Josh Luthman
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 120 megs through one pair of r52n?!  I'm assuming this is 40mhz?
 
 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 Suite 1337
 Troy, OH 45373
 
 "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
 --- Albert Einstein
 
 
 On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Jayson Baker <
 jay...@spectrasurf.com
> wrote:
 
> I think we get something in the range of 120Mbps through a
>> pair
>>> of
 MikroTik
> 411's and R52N wireless cards with 3' PacWireless dishes at 12
> miles.
> 120Mbps on the wireless.  Those boards only have 100Mbps
>>> Ethernet,
> so
> that's
> a limiting factor.
> 
> Total cost: <$1000
> 
> If you're concerned that MT isn't "reliable" enough, spend
>> $2000
 and
>>> put
 up
> 2 completely diverse links.
> Though, we have some MT's that have been in service since 2004
>>> and
>> are
> still
> cranking away without issue.
> 
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:57 PM, my_em...@webjogger.net <
> my_em...@webjogger.net> wrote:
> 
>> Looking to setup a 100Mbps or more link over 10 miles
>>> distance.
>> 
>> Anyone have comments about what brand they think is good and
>>> reliable?
>> 
>> It can be either licensed or unlicensed.
>> 
>> So far I'm looking at Exalt, Trango, and Dragonwave, but do
>>> know
>>> which
>> to choose.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> --
>> Jon Roux
>> Webjogger Internet Services
>> http://www.webjogger.net
>> 845.757.4000
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
 
>>> 
>> 
 
>>> 
>> -